Opinion
CV-22-01138-PHX-DLR
07-28-2022
Scott Thomas Bradley, Plaintiff, v. Lori Lynn Bradley, Defendant.
ORDER
DOUGLAS L. RAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Unlike state courts, federal courts are courts of limited subject-mater jurisdiction. Federal courts are authorized to hear cases between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This is called “diversity jurisdiction.” Federal courts also are authorized to hear cases brought under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This is called “federal question jurisdiction.”
Here, the complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant are Arizona residents, so there is no diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff instead alleges federal question jurisdiction. But, having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds no cognizable federal question. Plaintiff appears to be attempting to sue his ex-spouse for violating his federal constitutional rights, but as another judge in this District recently explained in a similar case filed by Plaintiff against Defendant: “While Plaintiff refers to the United States Constitution in the Complaint, he does not raise any constitutional claim against Defendant. Indeed, such a claim in this context could only be brought against the state or a state actor, and Defendant is not a state actor. Because Plaintiff has no federal claim against Defendant, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and must dismiss it.” Bradley v. Bradley, No. CV-22-00874-PHX-JJT, 2022 WL 2390946, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 1, 2022).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction.