Opinion
No. 2:21-cv-24-DPM
03-30-2021
EDWARD JONES PLAINTIFF v. JESSE B. DAGGETT, Attorney; AARON TRAYLOR, Traylor Farm Inc.; WAYNE TRAYLOR; CLARENCE JONES, Jones Farm Inc.; MICHAEL TRAYLOR DEFENDANTS
ORDER
1. Jones's application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is granted. He has little income and no assets.
2. The Court must screen Jones's complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This is Jones's third suit against Defendants alleging they fraudulently allowed an imposter to impersonate Clarence Jones at a civil hearing before the Lee County Circuit Court in 2017. This Court dismissed his previous § 1983 cases for failing to state a claim. Jones v. Traylor, et al., No. 2:20-cv-86-BSM, Doc. 3; Jones v. Traylor, et al., No. 2:20-cv-116-JM, Doc. 3. Jones now cites Title VII, alleging that he suffered racial discrimination and retaliation at the hands of Defendants. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Title VII protects employees from racial discrimination. It has no applicability here. There is also a limitations bar against any § 1983 claim: the applicable three-year statute has run on events that occurred at a hearing in August 2017. Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir. 2001) (ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-56-105(3) is the statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 cases filed in Arkansas). The parties are all Arkansawyers, so there's no diversity jurisdiction over a fraud claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). And in the absence of any federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); McManemy v. Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034, 1040-41 (8th Cir. 2020). The Court will dismiss the case without prejudice.
So Ordered.
/s/_________
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
30 March 2021