(Order Forin (01/2005)

oO United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

ssi itting Judge if Oth \
Samet asin Jee | _John W. Darrah swinnae one |W
pL drrsd
CASE NUMBER 12-cv-998 DATE 8/16/12
CASE Williams v. WLS TV
TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [8] is granted without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint
within 30 days of the date of this order. This is a firm deadline, and the failure to do so will result in
dismissal of this case with prejudice.

WI For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Nathaniel Williams filed a pro se Complaint against WLS Television (“WLS”) (erroneously
named as “Television Station: WLS TV”). Plaintiff appears pro se and has not moved for appointment of
counsel. WLS has filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed a document in response, although the
purpose of the document is unclear. (Dkt. No. 13.) The first page of the document is a copy of the first page
of Plaintiff's Complaint with an added handwritten statement that reads, “Neither contracted document was
signed by a Judge.” The next three pages are incoherent. Then, Plaintiff attaches an Audiological Report and
a Report of Otological Findings from Rush University Medical Center and his birth certificate. Plaintiff fails
to respond to WLS’s arguments supporting dismissal.

This is the second time Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint against WLS. Plaintiff filed an action in
this Court in 2006 against WLS and other television stations. Williams v. WGN Continental Broadcasting
Company, et al., No. 06 C 4182 (N.D. IIL.) This Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and gave
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff's court-appointed lawyer was given leave to withdraw
because he represented that he could not file an amended complaint consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 11. Subsequently, Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the Court’s deadline, and
the case was dismissed. In his instant Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following (all typographical errors are
in the original):

Assigned a police endepfamation contract to invade Mr. Nathaniel Williams
privacy for five years. So WLS.TV. Station assigned the same endepfamation
contract with the Chicago, Police department at 3510.S.Michigan Avenue
Chicago illinois 604Q/qyy#hpaliqesraptigyand media audio and vidio devices in
beded inside Mr. N-W. Telgvasaq set. § 250.4 Motion To, Amend Amendment.
Bring Cause of Action Place of Action, Ajl three party assigned endepfamation
contracts with the L&td ‘BobiWanl palak ne Holsten Management Houseing
Corporation, at 13750.S.Lowe Avenue Apartment 1 Motives Invasion of

Page | of 2



a

.* STATEMENT

privacy. To put Survellance video camaras in the Apartment. To keep watch and
Trespass. With supervision of apprehenion and interfear with Nathaniel
Williams individual Liberties by useing police Radio Announcement to the
public, on the out, and inside the apartment injurying me Williams Reputation
with. Slander and Libel by police Radio. The WLS TV.station is in violation of
“malpractice” of violateing The Fourth Amendment Bill of Rights, ‘the right of
privacy.” And of a professional duty to Act with Reasonable Care, and Good
Faith without Fraud or collusion of damages of Reputation of malpractice[.]
[Exhibit A.

The Complaint then seeks $10 million from WLS “for malpractice.”

Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of establishing the
elements of federal jurisdiction. Hart v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2006)
(“In general, of course, the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating its
existence.”). Plaintiffs Complaint fails to specify any cognizable grounds for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs
Complaint contains no allegations to support federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Wis.
Interscholastic Ath. Ass'n v. Gannett Co., 658 F.3d 614, 619 (7th Cir. 2011) (“The federal question must be
part of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.”). Furthermore, Plaintiff's incoherent reference to the Fourth
Amendment in his Complaint does not support federal jurisdiction. See United Phoshorus, Ltd. v.

Angus Chemical Co., 322 F.3d 942, 950 (7th Cir. 2003) (“A suit may sometimes be dismissed for want of
|jurisdiction where the alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statutes .. . where such a claim is
wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Nor does Plaintiff's Complaint specify any grounds for diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order, if he can do so
consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. This a firm deadline, and failure to file an amended
complaint will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice.

Page 2 of 2