Opinion
Case No. 17-CV-4332 (MJD/TNL)
10-11-2017
AMIN RICHARD BAKRI, Plaintiff, v. AARON IBRAHIM BAKRI, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Amin Richard Bakri alleges that defendant Aaron Ibraham Bakri defrauded him by inducing him to cosign a car loan that Defendant had no intention of repaying. See Compl. at 4 [ECF No. 1]. The Court assumes, for purposes of this Recommendation, that the factual allegations in the complaint are true. See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Nevertheless, "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit because it raises a federal question, see Compl. at 3, but no federal cause of action is mentioned in the short complaint, and the only claims for relief apparent from the face of complaint (such as for fraud or breach contract) must be raised under state law. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cannot provide a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims. See, e.g., Schantz v. White Lightning, 502 F.2d 67, 69 (8th Cir. 1974). Plaintiff does not contend that diversity of citizenship provides a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, see Compl. at 3, and both parties reside in Minnesota, making it unlikely that the parties are citizens of different states, as would be necessary to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). No other source of federal subject-matter jurisdiction is apparent from the face of the complaint. This lawsuit belongs in state court, not federal court.
Without subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court cannot proceed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that this matter be dismissed, without prejudice to Plaintiff's rights to relitigate this matter in an appropriate forum.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.Dated: October 11, 2017
2. Plaintiff Amin Richard Bakri's application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 3] be DENIED AS MOOT.
s/Tony N . Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), "a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy" of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in LR 72.2(c).