Lockwood v. Regions Bank et al

Filing 3

ORDER: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is GRANTED. The plaintiff has failed to show that his claim falls within the scope of this Court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Entry of this order shall constitute the judgment in this action. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 5/21/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

CHARLES R. LOCKWOOD
Plaintiff,
v.
REGIONS BANK, et al.
Defendants.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

No. 3:12-0496
Judge Campbell

O R D E R
The Court has before it a pro se civil complaint (Docket Entry
No.1) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry
No.2).
The plaintiff is a resident of Dover, Tennessee. It appears
from his application that he lacks sufficient financial resources
from which to pay for the filing of the complaint. Therefore,
plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Because the plaintiff is being allowed to proceed as a pauper,
the Court is now obliged to review the complaint to ascertain
whether its claim should go forward. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The plaintiff’s claim reads in its entirety :
While incarcerated in the Henry County Jail
for a 3rd offense - DUI, my bank account was
cleaned out of 20,000.00 even though assistant
branch Manager Gail Wilson noticed a suspicious
signature on all stolen and forged checks. I
reported the theft as soon as I was released

from Jail (9-28-10 to
theft on 1-25-11 on a
after my release from
reimburse even though

1-24-11). I reported the
timely manner, the day
jail. But they refuse to
they are a FDIC bank.

Docket Entry No.1 at pg.2.
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Rowan & Son v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 611
F.2d 997, 998 (5th Cir. 1980). They are empowered to adjudicate only
those claims involving parties with diversity of citizenship, 28
U.S.C. § 1332, and those claims arising from a federal question. 28
U.S.C. § 1331.
In this instance, the plaintiff has not alleged a statutory
basis for his claim suggesting a federal question. Nor has the
plaintiff

alleged

a

violation

of

federal

law.

In

fact,

the

plaintiff never mentions the defendants by name in his statement of
claim. Thus, the plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to
invoke federal question jurisdiction.
For diversity jurisdiction to attach, there must be complete
diversity of citizenship between the parties, i.e., the plaintiff’s
citizenship must be diverse from the citizenship of each of the
defendants. Catepillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 117 S.Ct. 467, 472 (1996).
In addition, the amount in controversy must exceed the sum or value
of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The

plaintiff

Birmingham,
diversity

Alabama.
of

indicates

that

Therefore,

citizenship

it

between

the

defendants

would
the

seem

parties.

that

reside

in

there

is

However,

the

plaintiff seeks only the “reimbursement of all stolen funds.”

According to the complaint, the stolen funds total $20,000, an
amount far below the amount in controversy needed to sustain
diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. As a consequence, it appears
that the Court has no diversity jurisdiction to adjudicate the
plaintiff’s claim.
A

district

court

is

obliged

to

consider

matters

of

jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. Hadley v. Werner, 753 F.2d
514, 516 (6th Cir.1985). Here, the plaintiff has failed to show that
his claim falls within the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Entry of this order shall constitute the judgment in this
action.
It is so ORDERED.

_____________________________
Todd Campbell
United States District Judge