Opinion
24-mc-51396
12-12-2024
In re Daveen Stacey-Ann Skeen,
OPINION & ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING MATTER
LINDA V. PARKER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
This miscellaneous action was opened by the Clerk's Office upon receipt of Daveen Stacey-Ann Skeen's filing of an “Order Decree Confirming Declaration of Name Correction.” (ECF No. 1.) In the filing, Skeen appears to be asking the Court to grant her a name change. However, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it is dismissing the matter. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action if it determines at any time that subjectmatter jurisdiction is lacking); Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.2d 477, 480 (6th Cir. 1999) (indicating that sua sponte dismissal is appropriate where the plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to invoke subject matter jurisdiction).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, with “only the authority to decide cases that the Constitution and Congress have empowered them to resolve.” Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2008). Generally, federal district court jurisdiction is limited to where a “federal question” is presented, or the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1132. “No authority vests with the federal courts to grant a name change.” United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2007); see also In re Smith, No. 23-mc-00136, 2024 WL 474536 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2024) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction action for a judgment validating the petitioner's name change); Norington v. Indiana, No. 3:13-cv-184, . 2013 WL 1332794, at *2 (N.D. Ind. April 1, 2013) (finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim, in part, because she is asking the court to change her name, but the court lacks the authority to do so). If Skeen wishes to change her name, she must follow the procedures provided under State law. Id.
Therefore, this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.