Martin El, No. 2:2015mc50984 - Document 6 (E.D. Mich. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martin El Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 15-mc-50984 IN RE: KENNEDITH FITZGERALD MARTIN EL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN Petitioner. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD / OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING MATTER On July 14, 2015, Kennedith Fitzgerald Martin El (a/k/a “Kennedith Fitzgerald Miller Martin”), filed a plethora of documents including an “Affidavit of Truth” [1], “Constructive Legal Notice-UCC-1 Registration Declaration of Sovereignty Ultimate Claim to Legal Freedom Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal” [2], Notice of Entitlement Right UCC-1 Registeration [sic]” [3], “Copyright Notice of Commerical TradeName/Mark-UCC-1 Registration Declaration of Sovereignty Ultimate Claim to Legal Freedom Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal” [4], and a “Special Power of Attorney in Fact and Declaration of Representative” [5]. Having reviewed all of Petitioner’s filings, the Court has determined that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they have only such jurisdiction as is defined by Article III of the United States Constitution and granted by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Fisher v. Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th Cir. 2001). As provided in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, federal courts have jurisdiction (1) over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“federal question jurisdiction”), and (2) over civil actions -1Dockets.Justia.com between completely diverse parties where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“diversity jurisdiction”). Federal courts have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte. See In re Lewis, 398 F.3d 735, 739 (6th Cir. 2005). Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) requires the Court to dismiss an action if, at any time, it determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Here, Petitioner neither raises a federal cause of action nor asserts a state cause of action involving diverse parties that exceeds $75,000. This Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 6, 2015 Detroit, MI /s/Gershwin A Drain HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Court 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.
