Keys v. Missouri

Full title: SIDNEY KEYS, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 17, 2013

No. 4:13CV00077 JAR (E.D. Mo. Jan. 17, 2013)

Opinion

No. 4:13CV00077 JAR

01-17-2013

SIDNEY KEYS, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant.

JOHN A. ROSS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of plaintiff's complaint for subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff brings this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "to enforce civil rights against state and local governments and to bar private discrimination."

Plaintiff alleges that several federal and local agencies "violated [his] civil rights." Plaintiff does not allege any non-conclusory facts showing how these agencies violated his civil rights such that any federal statute might give rise to a claim for relief.

Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."

A court does not obtain subject-matter jurisdiction just because a Plaintiff raises a federal question in his or her complaint. If the asserted basis of federal jurisdiction is patently meritless, then dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate. Because this is a facial rather than a factual challenge to jurisdiction, [the court] determine[s] whether the asserted jurisdictional basis is patently meritless by looking to the face of the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
Plaintiff.

Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 407 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

The Court finds the asserted federal claims in the complaint to be patently meritless. Plaintiff has not set forth a cause of action under any particular provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He has not alleged any facts from which the Court could possibly infer a cause of action under any federal statute. His claims are legally frivolous. As a result, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 12(h)(3).

An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order.

___________

JOHN A. ROSS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE