Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_20-cv-00040/USCOURTS-ared-3_20-cv-00040-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Adams
Plaintiff
Bryan Miller
Defendant
Karen Miller
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

RAY ADAMS PLAINTIFF 

v. No. 3:20-cv-40-DPM 

BRYAN MILLER 

and KAREN MILLER DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

1. Adams' s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, NQ 1, is granted. 

He has some income but can't afford the filing fee. 

2. The Court must screen his complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Adams has not adequately alleged subject matter jurisdiction: under 

the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the parties must be citizens of 

different states; and Adams does not plead the citizenship of either 

Bryan Miller or Karen Miller. It is also unclear what either defendant 

did to offend Adams. A complaint must contain specific facts that 

plausibly support a claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

677-78 (2009). The Court notes with concern Adams's request for 

relief. Ng 2 at 5. Perhaps it is hyperbolic. The biblical reference to 

Herod and John the Baptist is clear. But no United States court can 

afford the relief Adams seeks. The complaint will be dismissed 

without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Lee v. Airgas 

Mid-South, Inc., 793 F.3d 894, 898-99 (8th Cir. 2015). 

Case 3:20-cv-00040-DPM Document 3 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 2
So Ordered. 

l!ewb~-4;1=-

D.P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

3 ;V/ct.A. t/., ;;lO ;Lo 

-2-

Case 3:20-cv-00040-DPM Document 3 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 2