United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
a non-prisoner, filed her Complaint in this matter on April
21, 2016. (Filing No. 1.) Plaintiff has been given leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 6.) The court now
conducts an initial review of Plaintiff’s claims to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
sues Meineke Car Repair Shop and its owner, Charles Olson,
because Meineke insists on charging her to fix leaky
transmission-fluid hoses in her car after Meineke had just
changed the transmission fluid "a couple months"
earlier. Plaintiff alleges that Meineke "refuse[s] to
service [my car] without me paying them again." (Filing
No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 5.)
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court must dismiss a complaint
or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious
claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
377 (1994). The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal
district courts is generally set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutes, federal
jurisdiction is available only when the parties are of
diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75, 000, or when a "federal question" is
presented. "If the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332, commonly referred to as "diversity of
citizenship" jurisdiction, when "the citizenship of
each plaintiff is different from the citizenship of each
defendant." Ryan v. Schneider Natl. Carriers,
Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001). In
addition, the amount in controversy must be greater than $75,
000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
matter jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 when a plaintiff asserts a
"non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a
federal statute, " the Constitution, or treaties of the
United States, commonly referred to as "federal
question" jurisdiction. Northwest South Dakota Prod.
Credit Ass’n v. Smith, 784 F.2d 323, 325
(8th Cir. 1986). Under this type of jurisdiction,
a plaintiff must allege that the defendants deprived him of a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States and that the alleged deprivation was committed under
"color of state law" in order to bring a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494,
495 (8th Cir. 1993).
careful review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the court
finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this
matter. As to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction,
Plaintiff alleges that both she and Defendant Meineke Car
Repair Shop are citizensof Nebraska. Plaintiff does not allege
the citizenship of Defendant Olson, but lists his address as
4839 North 90th Street in Omaha, Nebraska. (Filing No. 1
at CM/ECF p. 2.) Because the citizenship of Plaintiff
and at least one of the defendants is not diverse,
diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction does not exist in this
case. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged a money amount in
controversy, and even if she had, it would be nowhere near
the sum required to satisfy the amount-in-controversy
requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
does not claim that federal-question jurisdiction is
applicable (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 4), nor does she set
forth any specific actions taken by Defendants that violate
any constitutional right or support a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 or any other federal statute.
these reasons, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332, and
this action must be dismissed without prejudicepursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court
will not give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint
in this matter because it is obvious that amendment would be
futile. Even liberally construed, ...