Braun v. Hearn et al, No. 1:2013cv00484 - Document 6 (D. Del. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 2 COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/14/2013. (nms)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BRENDA LEE BRAUN, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 13-484-RGA JOSEPH HEARN and RHONDA CAULDER, Defendants. Brenda Lee Braun, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION (ZJ.. May 2013 Wilm n'gton, Delaware Plaintiff Brenda Lee Braun filed this action seeking payment for theft, assault, and slander. She appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (D.I. 4). The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The acts of which Plaintiff complains occurred in Delaware. Plaintiff alleges that she lived with Defendants, and they took some of her belongings. In addition, she alleges that they slandered her name to various people throughout Delaware. Plaintiff seeks $1,600.00 in damages. While the civil cover sheet asserts jurisdiction by reason of a federal question, the Court perceives no basis for federal jurisdiction. In addition, there is no diversity jurisdiction. The Complaint and the civil cover sheet indicate that, at the time Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, she was a citizen of the State of Delaware (she now resides in Pennsylvania) as are Defendants. In addition, Plaintiff alleges damages in the amount of $1 ,600.00. Hence, the requisites for diversity jurisdiction are not met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (for diversity jurisdiction the matter in controversy must exceed the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs); id. at§ 1332(a)(1) (for diversity jurisdiction the matter in controversy must be between citizens of different States). Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amendment is futile. An appropriate order will be entered.

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.