Turner v. Woods et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 9/25/09: dismissing this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and denying as moot 2 plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (cc: plaintiff, all counsel)(nm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
____________________________________________ C A L B E R T TURNER, Plaintiff, v. G A IL W O O D S and DOROTHY JONES, D e fe n d a n ts . ____________________________________________ C a s e No. 09-CV-881

ORDER
T h e plaintiff, Calbert Turner ("Turner"), filed a pro se lawsuit alleging that his b u ild in g manager, Gail W o o d s ("W o o d s " ) , and a case worker from a non-profit o rg a n iz a tio n , Dorothy Jones ("Jones"), broke into his apartment in September of 2 0 0 7 , causing him unspecified monetary losses. Turner did not plead subject matter ju ris d ic tio n in his complaint, and the basis for this court's jurisdiction cannot be d isc e rn e d from the plaintiff's complaint. "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Ins. Corp. of Ir. v.

C o m p a g n ie Des Bauxites De Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (U.S. 1982). The types of c o n tro v e rs ie s over which a federal court may potentially exercise its authority is first lim ite d to those matters delineated in Art. III, § 2, cl. 1 of the United States C o n s t it u t i o n . Id. Moreover, statutory grants of jurisdiction further restrict the

a u th o r ity of a federal court. Id. For example, federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1331 a llo w s a federal court to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to claims that "arise under" fed e ra l laws, treaties, or the United States Constitution. To establish "arising under"

ju ris d ictio n , the plaintiff must present a federal question on the face of the complaint. C a te rp illa r Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Alternatively, federal courts may exercise jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332, the "d ive rsity jurisdiction" statute. Jurisdiction under § 1332 exists if the parties are

c itiz e n s of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A n d re w s v. E.I. Du Point de Nemours & Co., 447 F.3d 510, 514 (7th Cir. 2006). To e s ta b lis h diversity between citizens of different states, there must be complete d ive rs ity between all plaintiffs and all defendants ­ that is, the plaintiff must be a c itize n of a different state than each of the defendants. Lincoln Property Co. v. R o c h e , 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). Here, Turner's complaint seems to allege tortious interference with a property in te re s t, a state law claim. There is nothing in the complaint to indicate that the

c o m p la in t arises under federal law. Moreover, Turner's complaint does not allege th a t either W o o d s , a building manager of a Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , apartment c o m p le x, or Jones, an employee of a W isc o n s in non-profit organization,1 are both c itiz e n s of a state other than Turner's home state, which is presumably W is c o n s in . C o n s e q u e n tly, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff's lawsuit and w ill dismiss the case. A c c o rd in g ly,

S.E.T. Ministry, Inc., the organization that Turner alleges em p lo ys Jones, is a self-described " M ilw a u k e e com m u n ity- b a s e d health and hum a n services agency." See Overview of SET Ministry, h t t p : / /w w w . s e t in c . o r g / a b o u t / in d e x . h t m (last visited Sept. 24, 2009).

1

-2-

IT IS ORDERED that Turner's action be and the same is hereby DISMISSED w ith o u t prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Turner's motion for leave to proceed in forma p a u p e ris (Docket #2) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot. T h e clerk is ordered to enter judgment accordingly. D a te d at Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , this 25th day of September, 2009. BY THE COURT:

J .P . Stadtmueller U .S . District Judge

-3-