Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Rakhshanda Y. Talib, ) CASE NO. 1:17 CV 2514
) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
)
v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AAA Insurance, et al. , ) AND ORDER ) Defendants. )
)
Pro se Plaintiff Rakhshanda Talib has filed this in forma pauperis civil action against “AAA Insurance The Auto Club Group” and Katherine Probert, Agent. ( See Doc. No. 1.) She asserts claims for property damage in the amount of $1,805.13, and seeks punitive damages in the amount of $5,415.39, in connection with damages to her car that occurred in February 2017. She alleges she has a right to seek recovery for the damages on the basis of insurance she has with “AAA Auto Insurance (aka Auto Club Group, Independence Ohio, Dearborn Michigan, Chicago Illinois).” ( See id . at 3-4.)
Federal courts, however, are courts of limited jurisdiction and must dismiss any case in which they determine federal subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Nagalingam v. Wilson, Sowards, Bowling & Costanzo , 8 F. App'x 486, 487, 2001 WL 493392 (6th Cir. May 1, 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, [it] must dismiss the action.”).
This case must dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. *2 The basic statutory grants of federal subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1332 . Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp ., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). A plaintiff may invoke federal question subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331 when she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. Id .; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The face of the plaintiff’s complaint does not present a claim arising under federal law. The only discernible claims alleged in the complaint are damage claims arising under state law. Federal subject-matter jurisdiction may be asserted over state-law claims under §1332 when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §1332. The plaintiff’s filings, however, do not demonstrate a basis for an exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction as they do not demonstrate that all of the parties are of diverse citizenship, or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Conclusion Accordingly, this action is dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to any claims the plaintiff may properly bring in a state court on the facts alleged. The Court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Donald C. Nugent DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: _December 6, 2017___
-2-