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)

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-