Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-188 JVB.
April 22, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
A. Background
John Seely, pro se Plaintiff, filed a Complaint in the Allen County Superior Court on May 27, 2009, for fraud and he seeks injunctive relief against Defendants Brent D. Adams, the Board of Zoning Appeals of Fort Wayne, Bryan McMillan, Citi Mortgage, and HUD. Defendant HUD removed the case to federal court on July 9, 2009. On August 13, 2009, Defendant Citi Mortgage filed a Motion to Dismiss and on September 2, 2009, Defendant HUD filed a Motion to Dismiss. On January 8, 2010, the Court found that Plaintiff lacked standing to sue, but granted him time to amend his complaint. (DE 35). Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on February 1, 2010. Defendant Citi Mortgage subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on February 3, 2010, and Defendant HUD filed a similar motion on February 8, 2010.
B. Standard for Evaluating a Motion to Dismiss
C. Facts
See Gibson v. Chi., 910 F.2d 15101520Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 19371949Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544555 Id. Id. Twombly,550 U.S. at 570Id. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570See Brooks v. Ross,578 F.3d 574581Id.
In Twombly the Supreme Court "retooled federal pleading standards, retiring the oft-quoted [Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 42, 47 (1957)] formulation that a pleading `should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the [pleader] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Killingsworth v HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618, (7th Cir. 2007).
D. Analysis
To have standing to bring suit in federal court, a plaintiff must establish injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). A plaintiff establishes injury in fact by showing that the actions or inactions of the defendant constituted an invasion of one of the plaintiff's legally protected rights. Id. This injury must be concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, and cannot be merely conjectural or hypothetical. Id.
While Plaintiff attempted to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies indicated in the Court's previous order, his purported amended complaint fails to do so. Instead, this amended complaint adds confusion as part of it seems to be an argument rather than a complaint. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to allege additional facts to support his position that he has standing to sue Defendants Citi Mortgage and HUD. Therefore, because Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to add value to his case, the Court will strike it from the record.
Accordingly, the case against Citi Mortgage must be dismissed. Plaintiff has not established that the actions or inactions of Citi Mortgage constituted an invasion of one of his legally protected rights. Merely stating that Citi Mortgage held a mortgage on the property in question is not enough to establish injury in fact, and therefore, the Plaintiff does not have standing to sue Citi Mortgage.
Likewise, the case against HUD must be dismissed. While it may be true that HUD has a mortgage interest in the property, Plaintiff has not shown a causal connection between his alleged injuries and conduct by HUD. Therefore, because Plaintiff has not established in his Complaint that the actions or inactions of HUD were an invasion of one of his legally protected rights, he lacks standing to sue HUD.
With the dismissal of Defendants Citi Mortgage and HUD, diversity of citizenship no longer exists. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) states, "The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against the remaining Defendants are remanded to state court.
E. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Citi Mortgage's Motion to Dismiss [DE 37] and Defendant HUD's Motion to Dismiss [DE 39] are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [DE 36] is STRICKEN, and claims against the remaining Defendants are REMANDED to state court.
SO ORDERED.