Riker, Sean v. Riker, Taylor

Filing 10

ORDER Requiring Proof of Diversity Citizenship. Proof of Diversity Citizenship due 10/21/2011. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/7/2011. (voc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SEAN ANTHONY RIKER,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
11-cv-602-slc1
v.
TAYLOR ANNE RIKER,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In this proposed civil action for monetary and injunctive relief, plaintiff Sean Anthony
Riker, an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, contends that his ex-wife,
defendant Taylor Anne Riker, falsely told the police that plaintiff had downloaded child
pornography on his computer. Plaintiff brings claims against defendant for slander and
defamation and asks that the court order defendant to be prosecuted for possession of child
pornography. Plaintiff is proceeding under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
and has made an initial partial payment.
Because plaintiff is a prisoner, I am required by the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform
Act to screen his proposed amended complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally

1

For the purpose of issuing this order, I am assuming jurisdiction over the case.

1

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or asks for money
damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. In addressing any pro se litigant’s complaint, the court must read the allegations of
the complaint generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).
I cannot determine whether plaintiff may proceed with his claims against defendant
because it is not clear whether this court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. In every case
filed in federal court, the first task is to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists,
even if none of the parties raise that issue. McCready v. White, 417 F.3d 700, 702 (7th Cir.
2005) (“Ensuring the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is the court's first duty in every
lawsuit.”); DeBartolo v. Healthsouth Corp., 569 F.3d 736, 740 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Subjectmatter jurisdiction is not an issue that can be brushed aside or satisfied by agreement
between the litigants.”). Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, which means that they may
hear a case only if Congress has authorized it. Generally, a federal court may exercise
jurisdiction over a case in one of two situations: (1) the plaintiff brings a claim that arises
under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (2) the plaintiff and defendants are citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff’s claims against defendant are state law claims. Thus, the requirements of
§ 1332 must be satisfied for the court to exercise jurisdiction over this case, that is, plaintiff
must show that he and defendant are citizens of different states and that more than $75,000

2

is in controversy. Plaintiff is seeking $1 million in damages from defendant, so the amount
in controversy requirement is met. Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Insurance Co., 637 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2011) (amount in controversy requirement of
§ 1332 is satisfied if it is legally possible for plaintiff to recover that amount, even if recovery
of that amount is improbable). However, because plaintiff has not told the court the state
or states of which he and his ex-wife are citizens, I cannot determine whether plaintiff and
defendant are citizens of different states. (Plaintiff has provided a Colorado address for
defendant, but has not alleged that she is a citizen of Colorado.)
An individual is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled, that is, where he has
a “permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of
returning whenever he is absent therefrom.” Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th
Cir. 2002). For plaintiff, his citizenship is “the state of which he was a citizen before he was
sent to prison unless he plans to live elsewhere when he gets out, in which event it should
be that state.” Bontkowski v. Smith, 305 F.3d 757, 763 (7th Cir. 2002). Before I can
determine whether this court has jurisdiction over his claims, plaintiff needs to identify both
his and defendant’s states of citizenship.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Sean Anthony Riker may have until October 21, 2011 in which

3

to provide this court verification of the diversity of citizenship between himself and
defendant Taylor Anne Riker.

He should submit a sworn affidavit containing this

information. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Entered this 7th day of October, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

4