Blondell Mitchell v. Media Com, No. 12-3717 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. District court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where diversity was not complete and plaintiff failed to state a federal question; proposed amendments to the complaint were futile and it was not error to deny the motion to amend; in the absence of jurisdiction, the court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for default judgment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3717 ___________________________ Blondell Mitchell lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Media Com; Rick Sanchez; Cable News Network; Time Warner, Inc.; CNN Board of Directors; Time Warner Board of Directors lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: May 28, 2013 Filed: July 1, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Blondell Mitchell appeals the district court s1 order dismissing her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denying her motions to amend her complaint and for default judgment. After careful consideration, see A.J. v. UNUM, 696 F.3d 788, 789 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (de novo review of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) dismissals), we conclude dismissal was proper, given that the parties are not completely diverse and Mitchell failed to present a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting federal question); OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007) (diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires complete diversity among litigants); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (complaint must state more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation ; conclusory statements of law are insufficient to support claim). Because her proposed complaint amendments were futile, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying her motion to amend, see Cont l Holdings, Inc. v. Crown Holdings Inc., 672 F.3d 567, 574 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); and because the court lacked jurisdiction, we conclude it did not abuse its discretion by denying her motion for default judgment, see Weitz Co. v. MacKenzie House, LLC, 665 F.3d 970, 977 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Thomas J. Shields, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
