United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Kenneth Roberson, proceeding pro se, filed a
complaint against Defendants Natasha Davis, M. Seecrest, and
D. Young. (Doc. No. 1.) Additionally, Plaintiff filed a
document styled “Proceed Without Pay” (Doc. No.
2) that did not comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). On December 21, 2016, the Court issued an
order directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or to
properly apply to proceed in forma pauperis. The
Court also directed the Clerk to forward to Plaintiff a blank
Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (long form). Plaintiff has not paid the filing
fee, nor has he properly applied to proceed in forma
pauperis. Nevertheless, even if Plaintiff had complied
with the Court's December 21, 2016 Order, this action
would be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claim.
entirety, the complaint alleges:
I: a man claim:
The said wrongdoers(s) trespass upon my property; The causal
agent of the trespass, comes by way of its use of a forged
instrument, The trespass did and does harm and injury to my
property; The commencement of the wrong and harm began on
November 6, 2016; The wrong and harm continues until this
day; I, require compensation for the initial and continual
trespass upon my property; Compensation due: Three-hundred
and ninety-one thousand, dollars;
(Doc. No. 1.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to
conduct an initial review of any complaint filed in forma
pauperis and to dismiss the complaint if it is facially
frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Begola v. Brown, 172 F.3d 47 (Table), 1998 WL
894722, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 14, 1998) (citing McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007)). The Court must construe a pro se
plaintiff's complaint liberally, Boag v.
McDaniel, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), and accept the
plaintiff's allegations as true unless they are clearly
irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
pro se litigants are held to a less stringent
standard, they are not, however, exempt from the requirements
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wells v.
Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court is
not required to create a claim for the plaintiff. Clark
v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167,
1169 (6th Cir. 1975); see also Brown v. Matauszak,
415 F.App'x 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011) (“[A] court
cannot create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out
in his pleading”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); Payne v. Sec'y of Treas., 73
F. App'x 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming sua sponte
dismissal of complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and
stating, “[n]either this court nor the district court
is required to create Payne's claim for her”).
appears that Plaintiff is complaining about the Defendants
trespassing on his property. The federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction, and Plaintiff has the burden of proving
the Court's jurisdiction. United States v. Horizon
Healthcare, 160 F.3d 326, 329 (6th Cir. 1998). Even
where subject matter jurisdiction is not raised by the
parties, the Court must consider the issue sua sponte.
See City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 511
(1973); Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 324 (6th
Cir. 1998); Mickler v. Nimishillen & Tuscarawas Ry.
Co., 13 F.3d 184, 189 (6th Cir. 1993).
in this Court is reserved for cases: (1) that “arise
under the Constitution, laws or treatises of the United
States, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000
and the action is between (a) citizens of different States;
(b) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state; (c) citizens of different States and in which citizens
or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(d) a foreign state and citizens of a State or of different
States, 28 U.S.C. §1332.
has failed to allege facts sufficient for the Court to
determine the propriety of exercising jurisdiction. He has
not alleged any claims that would satisfy the requirements of
28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor has he alleged any facts to
establish any of the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C.