UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

BRADLEY KREBS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

JUDITH WILLIAMS, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 16-3096 

(D.C. No. 5:16-CV-03031-SAC-DJW) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Bradley Krebs appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as 

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A. Krebs filed suit against his mother, alleging that 

she failed to “care for [his] legal matters” and to support him during his incarceration 

as they had agreed. R. vol. 1 at 5. In his complaint, Krebs alleges that he and his 

mother are Kansas citizens, and that his mother caused him $14,000 in damages. 

A few months after filing his complaint, Krebs filed a Motion to Temporarily 

Set Aside or Possibly Dismiss Case. There, Krebs asserted that he was “once again 

 *

 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 

November 21, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

on good terms” with his mother and wished to avoid offending her with his lawsuit. 

Krebs asked the district court to stay his case indefinitely or alternatively to dismiss 

his case without notifying his mother. Id. at 23. 

A few days later, the district court granted Krebs’s wish and dismissed his case 

as frivolous. The district court construed Krebs’s complaint broadly as a claim under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and determined that because his mother was not a state actor, his 

complaint was frivolous. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To state a 

claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the 

Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged 

deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”). 

On appeal, Krebs argues that the district court erred because “[t]he District 

Court should not have recognized this suit as a ‘section 1983’ suit.” Appellant’s 

Opening Br. at 3. Krebs claims that “[t]his case was clearly and evidently one against 

a civilian over a personal matter pertaining to belongings and contractual agreements 

rather than one against government entities.” Id. Krebs argues that rather than 

dismissing his case, the district court should have temporarily set aside the case. 

Because Krebs appears pro se, we afford his pleadings liberal construction. See 

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But his pro se status does not 

excuse his obligation to comply with the requirements of substantive law. See McNeil 

v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). 

We conclude that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to 

dismiss Krebs’ complaint. A federal court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 
3 

§ 1332(a) to entertain state-law contract claims only when “each defendant is a 

citizen of a different State from each plaintiff” and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978); 

see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Krebs’s complaint fails to satisfy these requirements. 

First, he alleges that he and his mother are citizens of Kansas. Second, he alleges the 

amount in controversy is $14,000. And Krebs has disavowed asserting a claim under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. So Krebs has no claim supporting federal-question jurisdiction. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over 

Krebs’s case and properly dismissed his Complaint. 

Because the district court lacked jurisdiction, we remand this case to the 

district court with instructions to dismiss Krebs’ complaint without prejudice. 

Krebs’s Motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs of fees is denied. 

Krebs is ordered to immediately pay any unpaid balances. 

Entered for the Court 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge