UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

RICHARD A. SWOBODA 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

PATRICK BLANKENSHIP, et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 3:14-cv-490 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

In this matter, Richard A. Swoboda, a pro se plaintiff, asserts various claims arising under 

state law, such as malicious prosecution, fraud, slander, and malpractice, against several judges, 

attorneys, and a law firm, related to matters he has litigated in the state courts. However, he did 

not assert any claims arising under federal law, such as would invoke this Court’s federal 

question jurisdiction, nor did he allege facts that would support diversity jurisdiction. The 

defendants responded with several motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

(both for failure to plead jurisdiction and based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine) and due to 

judicial immunity. On June 30, 2014, Judge Springmann granted the motions to dismiss, finding 

that Mr. Swoboda had not properly alleged jurisdiction. Because Mr. Swoboda had not given any 

indication that he could cure the jurisdictional defects, the Court did not grant leave to amend. 

[DE 42]. Judge Springmann thus stated that the complaint was “dismissed with prejudice,” and 

the Clerk of the Court entered a judgment reflecting that order. Judge Springmann subsequently 

recused herself, and the case was randomly reassigned to the undersigned. 

Mr. Swoboda has submitted various filings since the dismissal of his case, but none of 

them present grounds for reconsidering the dismissal of his claim for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. However, in his July 2, 2014 filing, Mr. Swoboda states, “The plaintiff does have 
2 

one special request to make of the Court. Any Complaint that is dismissed, be done so without 

prejudice in order that the plaintiff’s Complaints can be refiled in an appropriate court . . . .” [DE 

45]. The Court construes this as a request under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend a judgment, and 

grants Mr. Swoboda’s request. Because the Court dismissed Mr. Swoboda’s complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal should have been without prejudice: “A suit 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction cannot also be dismissed ‘with prejudice’; that’s a disposition 

on the merits, which only a court with jurisdiction may render. ‘No jurisdiction’ and ‘with 

prejudice’ are mutually exclusive.” Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437, 438 (7th Cir. 

2004) (internal citations omitted); Murray v. Conseco, Inc., 467 F.3d 602, 605 (7th Cir. 2006) 

(“A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not on the merits. . . . A court that lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction cannot dismiss a case with prejudice.”). 

The Court therefore DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to amend the judgment so as to 

state that the case is dismissed “without prejudice.” However, this case remains closed, and if 

Mr. Swoboda wishes to pursue his claims, he should do so by filing his complaint in the 

appropriate state court. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: September 25, 2014 

 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court