Thomas v. Marola et al

Filing 73

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 4/13/09 granting 36 49 54 and 68 defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissing this action; denying as moot 13 29 34 and 45 defendants' motions for a more definite statement; and denying as moot 60 plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. (cc: plaintiff, all counsel) (nm)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN M A R Y P. THOMAS, P l a i n t if f , v. A T T O R N E Y TOM MAROLA, et al., D e fe n d a n ts . C a s e No. 08-CV-840 ORDER P ro se plaintiff Mary P. Thomas ("Thomas") filed suit against nineteen d e fe n d a n ts alleging a series of claims ranging from attorney malpractice, to o b s tru c tio n of justice, to "loss of normal lifestyle." Thomas initiated her action by filin g a completed Pro Se Civil Rights Complaint Form. However, after review, the c o u rt can discern no civil rights claims contained within the complaint. Instead, the p le a d in g appears to allege various claims relating to the failed sale and subsequent lo s s through foreclosure and bankruptcy of land once owned by Thomas. The c o m p la in t focuses primarily on claims against a number of attorneys, however, T h o m a s does not limit her named defendants to the five attorneys and one law firm a p p e a rin g in her complaint. Instead, she also names several real estate agents, four "b u ye rs ," the City of Muskego, a county circuit court judge, a bank, a construction c o m p a n y, and an individual from the Department of Natural Resources. F o u r of the defendants, understandably baffled by the rambling and largely in c o m p re h e n s ib le complaint, filed separate motions for a more definitive statement. A n additional four defendants filed motions to dismiss citing a lack of subject matter ju ris d ic tio n and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 2 (b )(6). These motions are now before the court for decision. The court finds that it lacks the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to hear Thomas' action. Therefore, th e court will dismiss all claims. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Newell Operating Co., v. Int'l U n io n of United Auto., Aero., & Agric., Implement Workers of Am., 532 F.3d 583, 5 8 7 (7th Cir. 2008). The federal courts may only exercise jurisdiction over cases w h e n that jurisdiction is "specifically authorized by federal statute." Id. Federal s ta tu te s 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1332 provide such authorization. Federal courts e xe rc is e jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 when the claims at issue arise under federal la w s , treaties, or the United States Constitution. Jogi v. Voges, 480 F.3d 822, 825 (7 th Cir. 2007). To establish subject matter jurisdiction "arising under" federal law, th e plaintiff must present a federal question on the face of the complaint. Caterpillar, In c . v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Alternatively, federal courts may exercise jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332. This "d ive rs ity" jurisdiction exists if the parties are citizens of different states and the a m o u n t in controversy exceeds $75,000. Andrews v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & C o ., 447 F.3d 510, 514 (7th Cir. 2006). To establish diversity "between citizens of d iffe re n t states," there must be complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all d e fe n d a n ts . Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). This means that th e plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each of the defendants. -2- T h o m a s fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction under either § 1331 or § 1332. First, the court can decipher no claim arising under the Constitution or any fe d e ra l law. Indeed, the recurring theme in Thomas' complaint seems to be attorney m a lp r a c tic e , which is a state law claim. Second, Thomas does not establish c o m p le te diversity between herself and the defendants. On the contrary, a review o f the complaint reveals that the addresses listed for the plaintiff and the defendants a re all located within the state of W isc o n s in . (See Pl.'s Compl., p. 7 1 ) . Thus, not o n ly does Thomas fail to plead diversity between herself and every defendant, she fa ils to plead diversity between herself and any defendant. Thus, this court does not h a ve jurisdiction over Thomas' lawsuit. T h e court must liberally construe Thomas' complaint because she is a pro se p la in tiff. Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir. 2006). This means that the c o u r t must give Thomas "a break" if she stumbles on a technicality, but her c o m p la in t is otherwise understandable. Greer v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 2 6 7 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2001). However, subject matter jurisdiction is not a legal te c h n ic a lity. Instead, the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is so vital that the is s u e may be raised either sua sponte, or at any point in the proceedings by the p a rtie s . Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2008). Further, the F e d e ra l Rules of Civil Procedure require a court to dismiss an action if the court The court refers to the pagination listed by the plaintiff on her com p la in t. However, the page labeled a s "page 7" is actually the ninth page of the docum e n t . 1 -3 - "d e te rm in e s at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 2 (h )(3). Therefore, the court is compelled to dismiss Thomas' action in its entirety. A c c o rd in g ly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' motions to dismiss (Docket #'s 36, 49, 5 4 , 68) be and the same are hereby GRANTED and the action is hereby D IS M IS S E D ; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants' motions for a more definite s tate m e n t (Docket #'s 13, 29, 34, 45) be and the same are hereby DENIED as m o o t; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (D o c k e t #60) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot; The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. D a te d at Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , this 13th day of April, 2009. BY THE COURT: J .P . Stadtmueller U .S . District Judge -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?