Williams v. Citywide Auto Mart, No. 1:2021cv01788 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the reasons stated in the Order, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). This dismissal is without prejudice to any claims plaintiff may properly assert in state court on the alleged facts. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent on 09/23/2021. (R,AP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Citywide Auto Mart Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Darlene Williams, Plaintiff, v. Citywide Auto Mart, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE N0.1:21 CV 1788 JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Prose pla~ntiffDarlene Williams has filed an informa pauperis civil complaint in this action against Citywide Auto Mart. (Doc. No. 1.) With her complaint, she has filed a motion to proceed informa pauperis. (Doc. No. 2). That motion is granted. For the reasons stated below, however, her complaint is dismissed. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have a duty to consider their subjectmatter jurisdiction in every case. Answers in Genesis ofKentucky, Inc. v. Creation Ministries Intern., Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, [it] must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a claim arising under federal law is presented on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. Mich. South. R.R. Co. v. Branch&. St. Joseph Counties Rail Users Ass 'n, Inc., 287 F.3d 568,573 (6th Cir. 2002). Federaljurisdiction may also be invoked under 28 U .S.C. § 1332 when the plaintiff presents state-law claims between parties of completely diverse Dockets.Justia.com c itizenship, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiffs complaint does not demonstrate a valid basis for an exercise of federal subjectmatter jurisd iction under either§ 133 1 or § 1332. No c laim arising under federal law is discernible on the face of plaintiffs complaint. The only c la ims plaintiff indicates she seeks to assert are statelaw c laims, including breach of contract. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 1.) But plaintiff has not demonstrated a valid basis for an exercise of diversity jurisdiction over s uch state-law claims as she has not demonstrated that she and the defendant of complete ly d iverse c itizenship, 1 or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Conclusion According ly, plaintiff s compla int is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. C iv. P. l 2(h)(3). This dismissal is w ithout prejudice to any claims pla intiff may properly assert in state court on the alleged facts. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § I 9 l 5(a)(3), that an a ppeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated• ~ 3 / J..QU 'The c ivil cover sheet plaintiff submitted w ith her complaint indicates she is a citizen of, and the defendant is incorporated or maintains its princ ipa l p lace of business, in Ohio. (Doc. No. 1-1 at I.) -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.
