Nails v. Steensland, No. 1:2006cv00799 - Document 3 (M.D. Ala. 2006)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, granting 2 MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Angela Denise Nails; Ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction as further set out. Signed by Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/11/06. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vma, )

Download PDF
Nails v. Steensland Doc. 3 Case 1:06-cv-00799-WKW-DRB Document 3 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ANGELA DENISE NAILS, Plaintiff, v. MARCUSE STEENSLAND, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 1:06-cv-799-WKW (WO) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action is presently before the Court on Plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 2.) It is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. However, upon thorough review of the complaint filed in this case, the Court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).1 On September 6, 2006, the plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint of Negligence in which she seeks $400,000 from Houston County Judge Marcus Steensland2 for her eight-day incarceration in the Dothan County Jail. (Doc. # 1.) The plaintiff fails to set forth any ground which establishes jurisdiction in a federal court over such a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).3 Moreover, this Court is unable to surmise any basis on which the plaintiff could invoke the 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, in pertinent part: W henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 2 The Court notes that the plaintiff incorrectly spelled Marcus in the caption of this case. 3 Under Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is required to allege in her complaint a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court s jurisdiction depends. Indeed, a federal court s jurisdiction m ust be established by a plaintiff in the complaint by stating the basis of the court s jurisdiction and by pleading facts that demonstrate the existence of jurisdiction. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11 th Cir. 1994). Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-00799-WKW-DRB Document 3 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 2 jurisdiction of a federal court to consider the subject matter of the instant complaint. The Court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate judgment shall be entered. DONE the 11th day of September, 2006. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.