Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_10-cv-00254/USCOURTS-almd-1_10-cv-00254-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

MELISSA MALEDY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:10cv254-MHT

) (WO) 

STEVEN HICKS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss

(Doc. No. 10) is granted with leave to plaintiff to file,

within seven days, an amended complaint setting forth the

jurisdictional basis of this court.

Federal district courts are empowered to hear cases

only by express congressional grants of jurisdiction.

Therefore, to invoke the jurisdiction of such courts a

complaint must affirmatively allege the statutory basis

for the jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kirkland Masonry v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 614 F.2d 532, 533 (5th

Cir. 1980). Plaintiff’s complaint fails to do this.

Case 1:10-cv-00254-MHT-WC Document 15 Filed 03/31/11 Page 1 of 2
Plaintiff alleges that the court has jurisdiction in

accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, § 1983 is not

a jurisdictional statute. See Harris v. McDonald’s

Corp., 901 F.Supp. 1552, 1557 (M.D. Fla. 1995)

(Kovachevich, J.) (“[Section] 1983 itself is not a

jurisdictional statute. It merely creates a private

remedy for violation of civil rights under the

Constitution or other federal laws which might otherwise

be unavailable.”).

DONE, this the 31st day of March, 2011.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00254-MHT-WC Document 15 Filed 03/31/11 Page 2 of 2