Johnson v. Praire Payee Services Inc. et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Charles Ray Johnson and Dismissing Matter for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by U.S. District Judge Charles B. Kornmann on 01/24/2025. (AKW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES RAY JOHNSON,

4:24-CV-04205-CBK

Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.

PRAIRE(sic)PAYEE SERVICES INC.,
MONEY MATTERS PAYEE SERVICES

INC., and ELITE PAYEE SERVICES INC.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint and a motion for leave to proceed informa
pauperis. Plaintiff has made the requisite showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to conduct a preservice

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) prior to ordering service ofthe complaint.
Carter v. Schafer. 273 F. App'x 581, 582(8th Cir. 2008)(unpublished)("the provisions
of28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) apply to all persons proceeding IFP and are not limited to prisoner
suits, and the provisions allow dismissal without service"). The Court is required to
dismiss a case filed without the prepayment offees if it determines that the action(1)is

frivolous or malicious,(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (iii)

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). I am required to give the plaintiffs pro se complaint liberal
construction and identify any discemable cognizable claim. Solomon v. Petrav, 795 F.3d

777,787(8th Cir. 2015). I have conducted an initial review as required by § 1915A.
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power

authorized by Constitution and statute." Gunn v. Minton. 568 U.S. 251, 256, 133 S. Ct.
1059, 1064, 185 L. Ed. 2d 72(2013)(internal quotations omitted)(quoting Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America. 511 U.S. 375, i' ll, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d391

(1994)). "The threshold inquiry in every federal case is whether the court has

jurisdiction" and the Eighth Circuit has "admonished distrietjudges to be attentive to a
satisfaetion ofjurisdietional requirements in all eases." Rock Island Millwork Co. v.

Hedges-Gough Lumber Co.. 337 F.2d 24, 26-27(8th Cir. 1964), and Sanders v. Clemco
Industries. 823 F.2d 214,216(8th Cir. 1987). As a threshold matter, the distriet eourt

must determine whether federal subjeet matter jurisdiction exists and this Court may raise
such issue

Auto-Owners Inc. Co. v. Tribal Court of Spirit Lake Indian

Reservation. 495 F.3d 1017, 1020(8th Cir. 2007).
This Court presumes that a eause of aetion lies outside the district court's limited

jurisdietion and plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction does exist.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.. 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675,

128 L. Ed.2d 391 (1994). Even pro se plaintiffs must eomply with proeedural rules and
suffieiently allege a basis for federal jurisdiction. McNeil v. United States. 508 U.S. 106,
113, 113 S. Ct. 1980, 1984, 124L.Ed. 2d21 (1993).

Plaintiff contends in his statement ofthe grounds for jurisdietion that he is alleging
conspiraey to commit deprivation ofrights, diserimination, intentional inflietion of

emotional distress, reekless inflietion of emotional distress, 14^ Amendment violation,
deprivation of goods and services, and breach of contract. He set forth in his statement of

claim that defendants breached a eontractual duty to plaintiff. He filed a supplement
setting forth his claim that defendant Prairie Payee Services, his Social Security
Disability payee, breached a eontraet in failing and refusing to pay on an agreement he
had entered into with Rent-A-Center. He speeifically stated that defendants Money
Matters Payee Services Inc. and Elite Payee Serviees Ine. were no longer appointed
payees and he has identified no facts to support any claims against those defendants.
Plaintiff has failed to state any faets supporting any federal claim against any

defendant. He has further set forth no faets to support diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has failed to plead a basis for federal jurisdiction. This case is subject to

dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Now,therefore,
IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motion. Doe. 4,to proceed informa pauperis is granted.
2. This matter is dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.

DATED this j^^^fJanuary, 2025.
BY THE COURT:

CHARLES B. KORNMANN

United States District Judge