Opinion
2:24-CV-358-TLS-JEM
12-20-2024
MARY ABRAYTIS, Plaintiff, v. INDIANA TAX COURT, INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW, and PORTER COUNTY ASSESSOR HARRIGAN, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN JUDGE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the issue of its subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are responsible for ensuring the parties have properly invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Knopick v. Jayco, Inc., 895 F.3d 525, 528 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Neither party raised the issue in the course of this litigation, but [courts] have an independent obligation to determine that jurisdictional requirements are satisfied.”). As the party seeking this Court's jurisdiction, the pro se Plaintiff Mary Abraytis bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction exists. Ware v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 6 F.4th 726, 731 (7th Cir. 2021) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction: It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” (cleaned up)). In this case, the Plaintiff has not met her burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons set forth below.
In the Court's November 6, 2024 Opinion [ECF No. 3] on the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court afforded the Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint, if any. The Court ordered that any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified in the Opinion by stating a claim over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and by including a jurisdictional statement setting forth the basis of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction.
On December 4, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint [ECF No. 4]. In her Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction based on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. However, the claim is based on: (1) her previous Indiana state court actions involving her disputes of tax assessments on a residential property in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 and the Indiana state courts' final determinations regarding those disputes; and (2) an allegation of new evidence of fraud on the court during those proceedings. This Court does not have jurisdiction over these issues for the same reasons as set forth in the November 6, 2024 Opinion. Consequently, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not cured the deficiencies in her pleading set forth in the November 6, 2024 Opinion, and the Court dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 3] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close this case.
SO ORDERED.