Ketiku v. Mint Urban Infinity, No. 15-1313 (10th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ KIMBERLY KETIKU, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 30, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MINT URBAN INFINITY - BRITTANIA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS - CARDINAL GROUP MANAGEMENT AND ADVISORY, No. 15-1313 (D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01322-LTB) (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Kimberly Ketiku appeals from the dismissal of her pro se complaint. Because she alleges no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, we affirm. Ketiku filed a complaint alleging that mold and other conditions in her apartment, owned by Appellee, caused her severe health problems. The district court * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. dismissed her complaint because she asserted only state law claims, and alleged no basis for federal jurisdiction. Ketiku timely appealed. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and can only decide cases that fall within the bounds of that jurisdiction. Morris v. City of Hobart, 39 F.3d 1105, 1111 (10th Cir. 1994). The two most commonly utilized forms of federal jurisdiction are diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Ketiku noted that the parties are domiciled in the state of Colorado, and thus has failed to show diversity as required by § 1332. And her only asserted causes of action are citations to “§ 38-12-503, § 38-12-505[, and] § 38-12507,” which appear to be referring to Colorado state law. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 3812-503, -505, -507 (concerning warranty of habitability).1 Ketiku has thus provided no basis upon which we can conclude that she has raised a federal question. Because Ketiku has not alleged a basis to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts, we AFFIRM the dismissal of her complaint without prejudice. We GRANT Ketiku’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Entered for the Court Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge 1 Although we clearly lack jurisdiction as a federal court, a state court may have jurisdiction to hear Ketiku’s claims as a court of general jurisdiction. See Colo. Const. art. VI, § 9. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
