Knope, Kevin v. Johnson, Abigail et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting plaintiff's motion to substitute (dkt. # 6 ) and this case dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/16/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KEVIN KNOPE,
Plaintiff,

OPINION and ORDER

v.
Case No. 16-cv-380-wmc
ABIGAIL PIERREPONT JOHNSON,
ANTHONY CLEMENT KOBLINSKI,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff Kevin Knope brings this lawsuit against defendants FMR LLC and
Madison Kipp Corporation, claiming that they conspired to injury his business.1 Knope is
proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee, so his complaint is before the court for
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In addressing any pro se litigant’s complaint, the
court must construe the allegations generously.
(1972).

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521

Even under this lenient standard the court concludes that this case must be

dismissed for the reasons set forth briefly below.
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.
Section 1331 jurisdiction is not present here. Although Knope claims that he is suing
under 18 U.S.C. § 241, that statute criminalizes conspiracies to “injure oppress, threaten, or
Knope’s complaint named Abigail Pierrepoint Johnson and Anthony Clement Koblinski as
defendants, but then he filed a motion to substitute FMR LLC and Madison Kipp Corporation, as the
only defendants. (Dkt. #6.) That motion is granted and the court has considered the information
about the citizenship of those defendants Knope provided in that motion for purposes of this order.
1

intimidate” another in the “free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege” secured by
the Constitution of laws of the United States. It provides for criminal punishments, and does
not create a private cause of action that would permit this court’s jurisdiction over this
matter.
Reading his allegations generously, Knope could be raising a state law claim of civil
conspiracy or tortious interference. Yet this court does not have jurisdiction under § 1332.
Indeed, Knope alleges that he lives in Wisconsin, that FMR LLC is located in Massachusetts
and that Madison Kipp Corporation is located in Wisconsin. Therefore, diversity jurisdiction
is not present. Knope therefore must pursue his state law claim in state court.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Knope’s complaint must be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Kevin Knope’s Motion to Substitute (dkt. #6) is
GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Entered this 16th day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2