Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100913_0000795.WPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 14:28:59
Document Index: 575565434

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1915', '§1915', '§1915', '§1332', '§1332', '§1332', '§1331', '§1331', '§1915']

| Greene v. Fisher and Fisher
Greene v. Fisher and Fisher
VICTORIA GREENE, PLAINTIFF,v.FISHER AND FISHER, DEFENDANT.
On September 2, 2010, Plaintiff, Victoria Greene, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 1). I granted said Motion on September 7, 2010. (Docket No. 2). On September 7, 2010, in forma pauperis Plaintiff's Complaint was filed. (Docket No. 3).
Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), district courts must dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis if the court determines, inter alia, that the action is "frivolous or malicious" or that it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). The court may sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint under this provision "at any time" during the cause. Id.
The language in §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," is substantially similar to that used in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). When deciding whether to grant or deny a 12(b)(6) motion the Supreme Court has held:
In Plaintiff's Complaint she asserts that jurisdiction is based on "28 U.S.C. §1332." (Docket No. 3, p. 1). Under the basis of jurisdiction on the civil cover sheet, however, Plaintiff did not check the diversity box (which would indicated that jurisdiction was based on §1332), but instead checked two other boxes. (Docket No. 3-1, p. 1). The first box checked indicates that the Plaintiff is the U.S. Government. Id. The second box checked indicates that there is a federal question in a case where the U.S. Government is not a party. Id.
According to the Plaintiff, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are residents of Pennsylvania. As a result, there is no diversity jurisdiction. See, 28 U.S.C. §1332.*fn1
Additionally, it is clear from the Complaint that Plaintiff is not the federal government. See, Complaint, ¶1.
That leaves jurisdiction based on a federal question, 28 U.S.C. §1331. Pursuant to §1331, "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." A review of the Complaint indicates that there is no federal question at issue. See, Docket No. 3. Furthermore, this court cannot find a plausible basis for jurisdiction over the facts as alleged or any amendment thereof, thus making an amendment futile. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the matters set forth in the Complaint.*fn2
THEREFORE, this 13th day of September, 2010, it is ordered that Plaintiff's Complaint (Docket No. 3) be dismissed with prejudice based on lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
This case shall be marked "CLOSED."