Opinion
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02802-PAB-KMT.
December 8, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte on plaintiff's complaint [Docket No. 1]. Plaintiff's claims for relief arise out of the issuance of a mortgage loan for the purchase of real property. The public records related to the property identified in his complaint, however, indicate that the mortgage loan was not issued to plaintiff and do not identify plaintiff as the property owner. See Fed.R.Evid. 201 (judicially noticed facts).
Given that there was reason to question plaintiff's standing to assert claims arising out of the mortgage loan and real property identified in his complaint, which in turn implicated the Court's jurisdiction, see San Juan County, Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163, 1172 (10th Cir. 2007) (standing implicates a court's jurisdiction and requires court itself to raise standing), the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to plaintiff on November 17, 2010 ordering plaintiff to show cause on or before December 3, 2010 why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Docket No. 4. The Court's order was returned as undeliverable. The Local Rules require parties to supply a current address, see D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1(K), and to inform the Court within five days of any change in that address. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1(M). It appears that plaintiff provided the Court with an invalid address upon filing this case and has not monitored the pleadings in order to apprise himself of the Order to Show Cause. The Court has received no response to the Order to Show Cause by the deadline. Given that plaintiff appears to have no interest in the property at issue, the Court finds no basis to assert subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DATED December 8, 2010.