Nixon Elliman v. The Cathedral Center et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/9/2017: DISMISSING CASE without prejudice and DENYING as moot 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Shirley Delores Nixon Elliman)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SHIRLEY DELORES NIXON ELLIMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CATHEDRAL CENTER and
MILWAUKEE COUNTY TRANSIT
SYSTEM,

Case No. 17-CV-700-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
On May 18, 2017, the plaintiff filed a pro se complaint and a petition
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket #1 and #2). Notwithstanding the
payment of any filing fee, the Court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it raises claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The plaintiff brings two claims, the first against the Cathedral Center
(“CC”) in Milwaukee and the second against the Milwaukee County Transit
System (“MCTS”). In her first claim, the plaintiff alleges that the CC denied
her access to a restroom. (Docket #1 at 2). This claim must be dismissed for
want of subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and may only hear
cases in two primary categories: 1) those raising issues of federal law,
known as “federal question” jurisdiction, and 2) those between parties who
are citizens of different states and which involve an amount in controversy
exceeding $75,000.00, known as “diversity” jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1332(a). The plaintiff has not properly invoked either form of
jurisdiction. If the plaintiff’s allegation that the CC denied her access to its
restroom is sufficient to state any claim, it would not arise under federal
law. Further, diversity is lacking. The plaintiff pleads that both she and the
CC are citizens of Wisconsin. Id. at 1-2. This claim must, therefore, be
dismissed.
The plaintiff alleges her second claim against the MCTS, but the
allegations contained in that claim are nonsensical. Specially, the plaintiff’s
second claim reads as follows:
Milwaukee County Transit System has buses I put on
Milwaukee Company’s status since 1999. A plus
converging from North Virginia City’s Bus Company.
They’ve claimed U.S. Treasury Dept’s monies. Housing
property personal clothing food and furnishing some since
February 2017. 91 Housing Depts. Jan Doyle suggest
departure of marriage to maybe former employee. Been
claiming some hospital procedures. Bank related. Datonia
Hotel assault at night Hilton Milwaukee WI March 2017.
IRS fraud April. My SS# is [].
Id. at 2-3. This claim is cast in such an incoherent and confusing manner that
it must be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) based on
the plaintiff’s failure to give the defendant (as well as the Court) fair notice
of that which she complains. Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th
Cir. 2003) (if a complaint’s lack of clarity makes it unintelligible, dismissal
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) is permitted). Though the Court is required to
construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint liberally, see Marshall v. Knight, 445
F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir. 2006), no amount of latitude could save this garbled
claim.

Page 2 of 3

Both claims, and therefore the plaintiff’s entire complaint, must be
dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis will be denied as moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Docket #2) be and the same is hereby DENIED as
moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 9th day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3