Skudnov et al v. Housing Authority of Bowling Green, No. 1:2011cv00070 - Document 5 (W.D. Ky. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 5/24/2011 re 1 MOTION for Extension of Time to File responsive pleading filed by Stanislav Borisovich Skudnov, Boris Nickolaevich Skudnov. For the reasons set forth, the Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal. cc: Plaintiffs, pro se (CDF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT BOWLING GREEN BORIS NICKOLAEVICH SKUDNOV et al. v. PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11CV-70-R HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BOWLING GREEN DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Boris Nickolaevich Skudnov and Stanislav Borisovich Skudnov initiated this action by filing a document styled motion for extension of time to file responsive pleading, a summons directed to the Housing Authority of Bowling Green, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff s motion states simply, comes Boris Nickolaevich Skudnov and moves the Court for an extension of time through May 12, 2011, in which to file a responsive pleading. It is axiomatic that federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and their powers are enumerated in Article III of the Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Hudson v. Coleman, 347 F.3d 138, 141 (6th Cir. 2003) ( [I]t is well established that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute. ). The party that seeks to invoke a federal district court s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the court s authority to hear the case. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Moreover, [a] federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit (subject-matter jurisdiction). Sinochem Int l Co. v. Malaysia Int l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 (2007). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must dismiss an action if it determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). The dismissal should issue as soon as the Court determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. Plaintiffs have not articulated any federal law claims or pleaded any state law claims that would meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332. In short, Plaintiffs have not established any case or controversy over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter a separate Order of dismissal. Date: May 24, 2011 cc: Plaintiffs, pro se 4413.008 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.
