United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court
I. The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted.
The complaint is now subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This statute requires a court to dismiss a case at any time if the court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A district court possesses only the jurisdiction conferred to it by Congress. See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966).
Congress has conferred subject matter jurisdiction on the district courts only in cases that raise a federal question and cases in which there is diversity of citizenship among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. '' 1331-32.
Smart v. Local 702 Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009).
Additionally, “[a] complaint must always . . . allege 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'A Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, Ill., 520 F.3d 797, 803 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
The plaintiff sues “Germany Country President” and “Germany Country Prisons.” He alleges that his uncle was killed 30 years ago while inspecting the Germany Country Prison facilities as ordered by the North America Armed Forces. His uncle’s body was not “expedited” back to North America for a correct burial and calling hours. The relief he seeks is money and “the body unburied and placed in the proper area.”
No federal question is invoked by the plaintiffs allegations and his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction is now mandatory.
Judgment consistent with this Entry ...