noting that a complaint may be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing where “it appears beyond a doubt that there is no way the plaintiff's grievance could ever mature into justiciable claims”
How later courts described this case
- noting that a complaint may be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing where “it appears beyond a doubt that there is no way the plaintiff's grievance could ever mature into justiciable claims”
- “A plaintiff generally must assert her own legal rights and interests and cannot rest her claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CHARMANE SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 20-cv-3271
)
FOCUS MOVING SOLUTIONS, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (d/e 2).
Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis (d/e 2) is granted on
the grounds of indigency. However, a court must dismiss cases
proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the action is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee is
paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court, therefore, reviews
complaints proceeding in forma pauperis to ensure that a federal
claim is stated before sending the complaint for service.
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However,
conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts
must be provided to "state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face." Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation omitted).
Plaintiff named as a Defendant in this case Focus Moving
Solutions, LLC. She alleges that this Court has jurisdiction based
on a federal question and pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1005, which
governs filing a claim with the Surface Transportation Board of the
United States. See d/e 1, p. 1. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that
she is domiciled in the State of Tennessee and Focus Moving
Solutions, LLC is incorporated and has its principal place of
business in the State of Illinois. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Big League
Movers moved the furnishings of Plaintiff’s mother. In the process
of moving, the movers broke a $300.00 lamp and a storage bin full
of outdoor Halloween decorations. Id. at p. 2.
Plaintiff previously sued for the exact same cause of action
against Defendant Focus Moving Solutions, LLC. See Smith v.
Focus Moving Solutions, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-3020. This Court
dismissed that complaint without prejudice for lack of standing and
jurisdiction. See Smith, Case No. 20-cv-3020, d/e 3. The complaint
in this case (d/e 1) and the complaint in the related case are nearly
identical. The only difference is that in this case, Plaintiff contends
that a storage bin of Halloween decorations was lost or stolen. See
d/e 1, p. 2.
For the same reasons previously found in the related case, the
Court must dismiss this case. The plaintiff lacks standing to bring
this cause of action. Swanson v. City of Chetek, 719 F.3d 780, 783
(7th Cir. 2013) (“A plaintiff generally must assert her own legal
rights and interests and cannot rest her claim to relief on the legal
rights or interests of third parties.”). Plaintiff alleges that Big
League Movers moved furniture for her mother, and during the
move, a lamp was damaged and a storage bin was lost or stolen. As
written, it appears that the items were the property of her mother.
Plaintiff does not allege that she suffered any injury from the alleged
conduct by Defendant.
Moreover, the Court also notes that it does not have
jurisdiction over this case. While the parties are diverse, the
amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all
civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000 . . . .”). Therefore, the Court lacks diversity
jurisdiction over this suit. To invoke jurisdiction under § 1331,
Plaintiff must bring a claim arising under federal law. Plaintiff has
not alleged a claim that involves a federal question.
As noted in the Court’s Opinion in the related case, Plaintiff
also fails to state a claim against Focus Moving Solutions, LLC as
Big League Movers were the movers. Based on the Complaint,
Plaintiff has not alleged any claims that caused her injury on behalf
of Focus Moving Solutions, LLC.
Therefore, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this cause of action,
and the Court lacks jurisdiction. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendant Focus
Moving Solutions, LLC. Because Plaintiff was put on notice of the
issues in her first action and did not cure any of the defects, the
Court dismisses this cause of action with prejudice. See Harris v.
Quinn, 656 F.3d 692, 701 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting that a complaint
may be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing where “it
appears beyond a doubt that there is no way the plaintiff's
grievance could ever mature into justiciable claims”); Ill. S. Ct. R.
237 (“Unless the order of dismissal or a statute of this State
otherwise specifies, an involuntary dismissal of an action, other
than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for
failure to join an indispensable party, operates as an adjudication
upon the merits.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (d/e 2) is GRANTED.
(2) This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of
standing and jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
ENTERED: November 2, 2020
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough___
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE