Petition for Writ of Certiorari — King Bush, Petitioner v. Kannika Say

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER

Kannika Say v King Bush

Docket No.

348594

LC No.

17-112047-DM

Christopher M. Murray, Chief Judge, acting under MCR 7.203(F)(1), orders:

The claim of appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction because the April 2 , 2019,

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on

JUN - 4 2019

Date

Chie:

Order

Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2019

Bridget M. McCormack,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

159941

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

KANNIKA SAY

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 159941

COA: 348594

Wayne CC: 17-112047-DM

v

KING BUSH,

Defendant-Appellant.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2019 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

» S

Vi

3

A\

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2019

al021

Clerk

Case 2:19-cv-12308-SJM-SDD ECF No. 6 filed 08/22/19

PagelD.19

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KING BUSH,

Case No. 2:19-cv-12308

Plaintiff,

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

v.

KANNIKA SAY,

Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING THE CASE

On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff King Bush filed a complaint and application to

proceed without prepaying fees or costs ("IFP"). ECF 1, 2. In the complaint, Plaintiff

alleges that Defendant Kannika Say, his ex-wife, committed various illegal acts

including kidnapping, money laundering, fraudulent marriage and divorce, and

immigration fraud. ECF 1, PgID 6. Plaintiff invoked both federal question and

diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 3. On August 12, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to

show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction. ECF 4. On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff responded to the show cause order.

ECF 5. In his response, Plaintiff merely reiterated the statements in his initial

complaint. See id.

As to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff fails to allege any additional facts

that would constitute a civil claim arising under any federal statute, treaty, or

provision of the Constitution. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

(1987); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant include kidnapping,

1

Case 2:19-cv-12308-SJM-SDD ECF No. 6 filed 08/22/19

PagelD.20

Page 2 of 3

immigration fraud, falsifying documents, money laundering, and other fraud-based

claims, see ECF 5; ECF 1, PgID 6, none of which are actionable as a civil lawsuit

arising under federal law. The Court therefore does not have federal question

jurisdiction over the case.

As to diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff likewise fails to provide any additional,

non-conflicting information relating to the domicile of both parties. Plaintiff states

that he is a U.S. citizen and provides a Michigan address for himself. ECF 1, PgID 2;

ECF 5, PgID 18. And although Plaintiff claims that Defendant is not a U.S. citizen

and has no green card, his other allegations indicate that she likely is lawful

permanent U.S. resident. Plaintiff claims that Defendant used his kids and a

different marriage to in fact obtain a green card, that she is facing charges in

immigration court and potential deportation, that she has a job in the U.S., and that

she voted in the 2016 election. See ECF 5, PgID 17—18. Plaintiff further provides only

a Michigan address for Defendant. ECF 1, PgID 2. "A district court does not have

diversity jurisdiction over an action "between citizens of a State and citizens or

subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the

United States and are domiciled in the same State." 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff fails

to show that the Court has diversity jurisdiction in the case.

The Court provided Plaintiff notice pursuant to Local Rule 41.2 that dismissal

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction would result if he failed to show cause why the

Court has jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that the Court

has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. See Global Tech., Inc. v. Yubei

2

Case 2:19-cv-12308-SJM-SDD ECF No. 6 filed 08/22/19

PagelD.21

Page 3 of 3

(Xinxiang) Power Steering Sys. Co., 807 F.3d 806, 810 (6th Cir. 2015) ("the party

invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden to prove that jurisdiction."). The Court

will therefore dismiss the case without prejudice.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Stephen J. Murphy. Ill

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: August 22, 2019

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record on August 22, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/ David P. Parker

Case Manager

3

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.