this Court is called for. As our Court of Appeals has
reconfirmed in Cook v. Winfrey, 141 F.3d 322, 325 (7 Cir.
1998):

It is axiomatic that a federal court must assure itself
that it possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter
of an action before it can proceed to take any action
respecting the merits of the action. “The requirement
that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter
'spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial
power of the United States' and is ‘inflexible and
without exception.'” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a
Better Environment, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1012 (quoting
Mansfield C.& L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382).

Nothing more need be added to confirm the legal
frivolousness of Ross' present federal action (although no view
is expressed here, of course, as to whether she has a viable

‘claim that can be advanced in a state court of competent
jurisdiction). Hence both this action and the Complaint are
"dismissed with prejudice, with the Application thus being denied

and the Motion thus also being denied (in the latter respect, on

mootness grounds) .?

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 7, 2002

2 Because Ross has accompanied her Complaint with an
audiotape of a court exhibit, that is being returned to her with
a copy of this opinion.


ae

Miuese Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 3937 DATE 6/7/2002
CASE Barbara Ross Townsend vs. Ila Rubens
TITLE

of the motion being presented.]

i [In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, .g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) a Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer brief due

(4) a Ruling/Hearingon__set for___at

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—sset fora

6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on sss setfor_——sat_
(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for]on at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) CGeneralRule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

denied (in the latter respect, on mootness grounds). (4-1, 5-1)

dl of {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

(10) a [Other docket entry] _ Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Both the action and the Complaint
are dismissed with prejudice, with the Application thus being denied and the Motion thus also being

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. umber of notices

Document
Number

o | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

77/2002

date mailed notice
courtroom

SN deputy’s .
initials oT oy
'=F Datertime received in -

central Cletk’s Office ating deputy ntl



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN, DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS rie
BARBARA ROSS TOWNSEND, ) gun 0 n
Plaintiff, }
v. No. 02 ¢ 3937
ILA RUBENS,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Barbara Ross Townsend a/k/a Barbara Ross (“Ross”) has
tendered a self-prepared “42 U.S.C. §1983 Civil Rights Complaint”
against Ila Rubens (“Rubens”), accompanying her Complaint with
Clerk-of-Court-supplied forms of an Application To Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees (“Application”) and of a Motion for
Appointment of Counsel ("Motion"). But because of the obvious
jurisdictional deficiency in Ross' substantive claim, this sua
sponte memorandum opinion and order disposes of her action at its
inception.
For any litigant to obtain in forma pauperis status, he or
‘she must not only make an adequate showing of indigency but must
_ also advance a non-frivolous federal claim (in the sense defined
by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) and further
‘refined in Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992))--in
that respect, see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324. Here the Application
reveals that Ross is not currently employed and it also lists no

assets, so that Ross would qualify solely in financial terms for


the relief that is sought by the Application. But Ross plainly
fails to clear the second hurdle.

What the Complaint reveals’ is that Ross is the aggrieved
ex-wife of Christopher Townsend, who cheated on her with Rubens
(and indeed with other women as well). When Ross learned that,
she brought suit seeking a dissolution of her marriage, which was
granted on April 16 of this year. Now Ross seeks $100,000 in
compensatory damages and another $100,000 in punitive damages
against homebreaker Rubens.

But Ross' difficulty in seeking to bring that claim here is

_ that she is obviously unaware that federal courts are courts of

‘ Limited jurisdiction, authorized to consider only such cases as

Congress may prescribe. And in that respect:

1. Because Rubens is a private individual and not a
“state actor,” Section 1983 does not apply at all. Nor does
any other federal-question basis for jurisdiction emerge
from Ross' allegations.

2. Because both Ross and Rubens are Illinois citizens,
the other possible fount of federal subject matter
jurisdiction--diversity of citizenship--is lacking.

Because Ross' problem in attempting to enter the federal

courthouse door is thus jurisdictional, a sua sponte dismissal by

+ For present purposes this Court assumes the truth of
everything that Ross claims (although of course it makes no
factual findings in that respect).

2