Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

James F. Holderman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 3617 DATE 5/21/2012

CASE

TITLE

Selina Miller vs. Central Ohio Transit Authority

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons listed in the Statement section of the order, plaintiff Selina Miller’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis [3] is denied without prejudice. Miller’s complaint does not contain an appropriate allegation that this

court has subject matter jurisdiction. If she desires to pursue her claim in this court, Miller may file an amended

complaint, but it must include a statement of jurisdiction as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). If Miller files an

amended complaint, she may also file a new request to proceed IFP. If Miller does not file an amended complaint

by June 11, 2012, the case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Selina Miller filed a complaint labeled “Breach of Contract” in which she alleges she was injured while

riding on a bus operated by the Central Ohio Transit Authority in Columbus, Ohio. (Dkt. No. 1.) Miller’s

complaint lists an address with a 43213 zip code, a zip code in Columbus, Ohio. Pending before the court is

Miller’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No. 3.)

Requests to proceed IFP are reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. To ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful

access to the courts, § 1915 allows an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without paying

the administrative costs of the lawsuit. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 27 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 324 (1988). However, the court must deny a request to proceed IFP if (1) the allegation of poverty is

untrue; (2) the action is frivolous; (3) the action fails to state a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief

against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Hutchinson v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir.

1997) (recognizing the applicability of § 1915 to cases brought by non-prisoners). 

Here, the court cannot evaluate whether Miller’s complaint is frivolous, because she failed to comply with the

requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1), which requires a complaint to include a short and plain

statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction. Miller’s claim is a basic state law claim and appears to

provide no ground for federal question jurisdiction. Moreover, because Miller has provided an Ohio address, she

may be a citizen of Ohio, and defendant Central Ohio Transit Authority is likely an Ohio corporation and a

citizen of Ohio. There is thus no apparent ground for diversity jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, Miller’s request to proceed IFP (Dkt. No. 3) is denied without prejudice. If Miller contends this

court has jurisdiction, she may file an amended complaint including the required statement of jurisdiction, along

with a new request to proceed IFP, by June 11, 2012. If she does not file an amended complaint by that date, the

case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in this court, and Miller, if she desires, may seek

12C3617 Selina Miller vs. Central Ohio Transit Authority Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

to pursue her complaint in a court that has proper subject matter jurisdiction.

12C3617 Selina Miller vs. Central Ohio Transit Authority Page 2 of 2