Reedom v. Crappell et al

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing Case. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 9/12/2014. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT REEDOM,

CIV. 14-4143-KES

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

SABRA A. CRAPPELL and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
Before the court is a complaint filed by Robert Reedom seeking damages
against defendants for “committing personal harm and injury causing back and
spinal injury.” Docket 1 at 1. Reedom also filed an Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Docket 4. “Federal courts have
limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction must neither be
disregarded nor evaded. The court is obligated to determine sua sponte
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.” Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s
Office, 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v.
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978) and Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d
1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004)). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.”) (emphasis added). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts
have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.”
The instant action is a personal injury case and does not implicate a
federal question. Accordingly, the court does not have jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, district courts have “original

jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum
or value of $75,000, . . . and is between citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). “A case falls within the federal district court’s ‘original’ diversity
‘jurisdiction’ only if diversity of citizenship among the parties is complete, i.e.,
only if there is no plaintiff and no defendant who are citizens of the same
State.” Wis. Dept. of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998) (citations
omitted). Here, Reedom is a citizen of the state of Louisiana. Defendant Crappel
is a citizen of Louisiana while defendant State Farm is a citizen of Illinois.
Docket 1 at 1-2. Because both Reedom and defendant Crappel are citizens of
Louisiana, diversity of citizenship between the parties is not complete, and this
court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Based upon the
foregoing, it is
ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Dated September 12, 2014.

BY THE COURT:
/s/Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-