Webb et al v. Evans, No. 3:2019cv00078 - Document 9 (E.D. Ky. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Webbs complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. Any and all pending motions are DENIED as moot. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the Courts docket. 4. The Court will enter an appropriate Judgment. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 10/28/2019.(CBD)cc: COR, Webb via US Mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION FRANKFORT MARK XAVIER WEBB, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 3:19-078-KKC v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER KAREN EVANS, Defendant. *** *** *** *** Mark Xavier Webb is an inmate at the Fulton County Detention Center in Hickman, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Webb filed a civil rights complaint with the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on behalf of himself and his minor daughter. [R. 1]. In the complaint, Webb alleges that the defendant, the owner of a daycare center in Carrollton, Kentucky, left his child alone at the daycare during a power outage. [See id. at 4-5]. As a result, Webb is seeking money damages, among other forms of relief. [Id. at 6]. That said, the Western District transferred Webb’s case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) because the defendant resides in this judicial district and all or a substantial part of the events set forth in the complaint allegedly occurred here. [R. 5]. This Court, however, will dismiss Webb’s pro se complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his case. Although Webb filed his pleading on a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint form, and, thus, he invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983, there is no indication that Webb’s claim against the defendant, a private citizen, arises under federal constitutional or statutory law. Moreover, since Webb indicates that the parties all reside in Kentucky [see id. at 1-2, 5], this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction. In short, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action and, therefore, it will dismiss Webb’s complaint without prejudice to his right to assert his claim in the proper forum. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Webb’s complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. Any and all pending motions are DENIED as moot. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. 4. The Court will enter an appropriate Judgment. Dated October 28, 2019 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.
