Iron Horn v. Chance Casino

Filing 7

ORDER Dismissing Case. Signed by Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 1/6/16. (SB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
SOPHIA IRON HORN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHANCE CASINO,

CIV. 15-5093-JLV
ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, DISMISSING CASE,
AND DENYING MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Defendant.
On December 30, 2015, plaintiff Sophia Iron Horn filed a complaint
against defendant. (Docket 1). Ms. Iron Horn moves for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Docket 4). She also moves the court to appoint counsel.
(Docket 5). For the reasons discussed below, Ms. Iron Horn’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis is granted, her complaint is dismissed, and her motion to
appoint counsel is denied as moot.
A federal court may authorize the commencement of suit without
prepayment of fees when an applicant files an affidavit stating she is unable to
pay the costs of the lawsuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Determining whether an
applicant is sufficiently impoverished to qualify to proceed in forma pauperis
under § 1915 is committed to the court's discretion. Cross v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983). “[I]n forma pauperis status does
not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution.” Lee v. McDonald’s
Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000). This court finds that Ms. Iron Horn is
indigent and grants her motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Because Ms. Iron Horn is proceeding pro se, her pleading must be liberally
construed and her complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“[F]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . . .” United States v.
Afremov, 611 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir. 2010). “[A] court may not proceed at all in
a case unless it has jurisdiction.” Crawford v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 267
F.3d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 2001). “[F]ederal courts are obligated to raise the issue
of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” Id. at 764, n.2 (citing Andrus v.
Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U.S. 604, 608 n.6 (1978)).
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction through federal question
jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district
courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States[.]”
Ms. Iron Horn’s complaint does not allege grounds for jurisdiction. She
does not allege her claim arises under the Constitution or federal law, and the
court does not construe her claim as doing so. Her complaint asserts a personal
injury claim. (Docket 1). Ms. Iron Horn and defendant are both citizens of the
State of South Dakota. Id. at 1. Therefore, neither diversity nor federal
question jurisdiction applies. Ms. Iron Horn may choose to file her case in the
2

Seventh Judicial Circuit Court for Pennington County, South Dakota. This
court does not have jurisdiction over Ms. Iron Horn’s complaint. Accordingly, it
is
ORDERED that Ms. Iron Horn’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket 4) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Iron Horn’s complaint (Docket 1) is
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Iron Horn’s motion to appoint counsel
(Docket 5) is denied as moot.
Dated January 6, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
CHIEF JUDGE

3