Reginald Robinson v. Pulaski Technical College, No. 17-2099 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Procedure. Preservice dismissal of plaintiff's pro se complaint affirmed without comment. [ October 16, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2099 ___________________________ Reginald Robinson, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Pulaski Technical College, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro ____________ Submitted: October 11, 2017 Filed: October 17, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Reginald Robinson appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal, without prejudice, of his pro se complaint. He also moves to supplement the record on appeal. 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Robinson’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Laclede Gas Co. v. St. Charles Cnty., Mo., 713 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Robinson did not assert a valid basis for federal question jurisdiction because he relied on federal criminal statutes only, and because the complaint revealed a lack of diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (requirements for federal question jurisdiction); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in prosecution of another); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (requirements for diversity jurisdiction); Ryan v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001) (discussing diversity of citizenship). We also conclude that the material proffered with Robinson’s motion to supplement the record would not have affected the outcome. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Robinson’s motion to supplement the record is denied as moot. ______________________________ -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.
