Summary
affirming district court's dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where pro se plaintiff "did not plead facts sufficient to demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship among the parties or to state a claim involving a substantial question of federal law . . ."
Summary of this case from Richardson v. Warner Brothers RecordsOpinion
No. 06-13763 Non-Argument Calendar.
March 9, 2007.
Linda Cone Selensky, Mobile, AL, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. D.C. Docket No. 06-00217-CV-WS-M.
Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
Linda Cone Selensky, acting pro se, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of her civil action against Mobile Infirmary, a group of doctors, Coleman American Moving, Inc., and an entity called Gallagher-Bassett, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In order for a federal district court to have jurisdiction over a claim, a plaintiff must show, on the face of the complaint, either complete diversity of citizenship or that a "substantial" issue of federal law is raised by the claim. See Dunlap v. G L Holding Group, Inc., 381 F.3d 1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Because Selensky's claims were based on allegations of tortious and fraudulent conduct by private actors within her state of residence, and because she did not plead facts sufficient to demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship among the parties or to state a claim involving a substantial question of federal law, the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm.