Smith v. Hartley et al, No. 2:2017cv01021 - Document 14 (D.N.M. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by District Judge Judith C. Herrera dismissing case without prejudice. (baw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Hartley et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO MELISSA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. No. 17cv1021 JCH/KRS MICHAEL HARTLEY and JAKE VU, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Doc. 13, filed December 20, 2017. For the reasons stated below, the Court will DISMISS this case without prejudice. Plaintiff’s original Complaint alleged that while she “went through all the proper procedures,” Defendants did not follow the proper procedure, abused their authority and did not issue a patent to Plaintiff. See Complaint at 1-2. Plaintiff sought “All rights to my invention, all back compensation and my patent being approved.” Complaint at 5. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff’s Complaint did not contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” as required by Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, Plaintiff filed her Complaint using the form “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983” and checked the box indicating that Defendants were acting under color of state law. However, there were no factual allegations showing that Defendants are state actors. The Court notified Plaintiff that as the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, she bears the burden of alleging facts that support jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 Dockets.Justia.com F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction”); Evitt v. Durland, 243 F.3d 388 *2 (10th Cir. 2000) (“even if the parties do not raise the question themselves, it is our duty to address the apparent lack of jurisdiction sua sponte”) (quoting Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 843 (10th Cir.1988). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, parts of which are difficult to understand or illegible, makes additional allegations regarding her experience with the patent application process but does not contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” as required by Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will, therefore, dismiss this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”). IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. __________________________________ 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.
