Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01313/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01313-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kimberly Ketiku
Appellant
Mint Urban Infinity - Brittania Heights Apartments - Cardinal Group Management and Advisory
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

KIMBERLY KETIKU, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

MINT URBAN INFINITY - BRITTANIA 

HEIGHTS APARTMENTS - CARDINAL 

GROUP MANAGEMENT AND 

ADVISORY, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 15-1313 

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01322-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Kimberly Ketiku appeals from the dismissal of her pro se complaint. Because 

she alleges no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, we affirm. 

 Ketiku filed a complaint alleging that mold and other conditions in her 

apartment, owned by Appellee, caused her severe health problems. The district court 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

October 30, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1313 Document: 01019515968 Date Filed: 10/30/2015 Page: 1 
2 

dismissed her complaint because she asserted only state law claims, and alleged no 

basis for federal jurisdiction. Ketiku timely appealed. 

 Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and can only decide cases that fall 

within the bounds of that jurisdiction. Morris v. City of Hobart, 39 F.3d 1105, 1111 

(10th Cir. 1994). The two most commonly utilized forms of federal jurisdiction are 

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and federal-question jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1331. Ketiku noted that the parties are domiciled in the state of 

Colorado, and thus has failed to show diversity as required by § 1332. And her only 

asserted causes of action are citations to “§ 38-12-503, § 38-12-505[, and] § 38-12-

507,” which appear to be referring to Colorado state law. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 38-

12-503, -505, -507 (concerning warranty of habitability).1 Ketiku has thus provided 

no basis upon which we can conclude that she has raised a federal question. 

 Because Ketiku has not alleged a basis to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal 

courts, we AFFIRM the dismissal of her complaint without prejudice. We GRANT

Ketiku’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

 1

 Although we clearly lack jurisdiction as a federal court, a state court may 

have jurisdiction to hear Ketiku’s claims as a court of general jurisdiction. See Colo. 

Const. art. VI, § 9. 

Appellate Case: 15-1313 Document: 01019515968 Date Filed: 10/30/2015 Page: 2