The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, in pertinent part: “Whenever it appears by suggestion of the
parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ.
The Court notes that the plaintiff incorrectly spelled “Marcus” in the caption of this case.
Under Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is required to allege in her complaint
“a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends.” Indeed, a federal court’s
jurisdiction must be established by a plaintiff in the complaint by stating the basis of the court’s jurisdiction and by
pleading facts that demonstrate the existence of jurisdiction. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11 Cir. 1994).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ANGELA DENISE NAILS,
) CASE NO.: 1:06-cv-799-WKW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. # 2.) It is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
However, upon thorough review of the complaint filed in this case, the Court concludes that
dismissal of this case is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).1
On September 6, 2006, the plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a “Complaint of Negligence” in
which she seeks $400,000 from Houston County Judge Marcus Steensland for her eight-day
incarceration in the Dothan County Jail. (Doc. # 1.) The plaintiff fails to set forth any ground which
establishes jurisdiction in a federal court over such a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).3
Moreover, this Court is unable to surmise any basis on which the plaintiff could invoke the
Case 1:06-cv-00799-WKW-DRB Document 3 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Nails v. Steensland