UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION
February 18, 2011
TRACY ADAMS, PLAINTIFF,
DANEEN VANDRA, MANAGER OF THE HURLBURT HOUSE, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy McDADE United States Senior District Judge
Friday, 18 February, 2011 02:28:54 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
ORDER & OPINION
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Plaintiff is seeking to file a claim against Daneen Vandra, who he alleges is the manager of the apartment complex at which he lives. However, Plaintiff's Complaint does not specify the federal legal basis for his claim, and upon initial review the Court could not determine the basis for its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint in which he indicated why his claim belonged in federal court. (Text Order of 1/11/2011). In response, Plaintiff filed a Letter alleging additional facts regarding his claim. (Doc. 3).
In his Complaint and Letter, Plaintiff alleges that the basis for his claim is the fact that Defendant filed a false police report against him which led to him being "tased" by the police and taken to a mental hospital. (Doc. 1 at 5; Doc. 3). "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only exercise jurisdiction where it is specifically authorized by federal statute." Evers v. Astrue, 536 F.3d 651, 657 (7th Cir. 2008). "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause" and therefore the Court must consider the question before allowing the case to proceed. See Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514 (1868). Moreover, the Court is "obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction." Tylka v. Gerber Products, Co., 211 F.3d 445, 447-48 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Mt. Healthy City Board of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977)). Based upon the Complaint and Letter before it, the Court can find no grounds for jurisdiction over Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant.*fn1 Plaintiff may have proper claims against Defendant for a state law cause of action such as defamation, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc., but the Court cannot find a basis for these claims to proceed in federal court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is RENDERED MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Entered this 18th day of February, 2011.