Scott v. Soles

Full title: CURTIS SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. LEROY SOLES, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Feb 14, 2022

21-cv-11145 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 14, 2022)

Opinion

21-cv-11145

02-14-2022

CURTIS SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. LEROY SOLES, et al., Defendants.

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 10)

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In March 2016, a jury in this Court convicted Plaintiff Curtis Scott of one count of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(1) and (2), one count of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and (2), and one count of making a false statement or representation to a department or agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. (See Verdict Form, ECF No. 91 in E.D. Mich. Case No. 14-cr-20780.)

On May 10, 2021, Scott filed this civil action against the criminal defense attorneys who represented him at trial, Leroy Soles and the Federal Defenders Office. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) In his Complaint, Scott brought a legal malpractice claim against the Defendants. (See id.) The Court dismissed the Complaint on October 25, 2021, because Scott had failed to establish that this Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over his state-law malpractice claim. (See Order, ECF No. 9.)

Scott has now filed a motion for reconsideration. (See Mot., ECF No. 10.) In the motion, Scott argues that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under “28 U.S.C. 1332” because he seeks “over $75 thousand” in damages. (Id., PageID.26.) But as the Court previously explained to Scott, a claim for damages in an amount over $75,000 is just one component of the Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 4, PageID.13.) Indeed, Scott must also show that “he and the Defendants are citizens of different states.” (Id.) Scott has still failed to do so. Thus, because Scott's motion for reconsideration does not address the basis of the Court's dismissal, and because Scott has still not shown that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim, Scott's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on February 14, 2022, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126