Opinion
CAUSE NO. 2:06-CV-261RM.
October 3, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
Jong Hi Bek sued his former attorneys in this court. The complaint makes no mention of the parties' citizenship or any other basis for federal jurisdiction. The civil cover sheet indicates that the court's jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On September 10, the court noted the lack of any jurisdictional allegation and afforded Mr. Bek until September 28 within which to file a jurisdictional statement setting forth the parties' citizenship and the amount in controversy.
Mr. Bek responded with a motion to amend the civil cover sheet to show federal question jurisdiction; his accompanying memorandum explains that he Wants to proceed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Such an amendment would not establish federal jurisdiction because the defendants are not federal agents or persons sued for actions taken under color of federal law. Mr. Bek sues them on a state law legal malpractice theory.
The September 10 order explained to Mr. Bek what he needed to do to demonstrate diversity jurisdiction and he did not do it, perhaps because all parties are citizens of the same state, or perhaps because he has no claim as great as $75,000 against any defendant. In any event, neither the complaint nor Mr. Bek's response to the September 10 order suggest any basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction over his state law legal malpractice claims. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES this action for lack of federal jurisdiction. All pending motions shall be deemed denied as moot.