Ortiz et al v. Vega
| Ana Ortiz and A.B. |
| Jose Vega |
| 1:2024cv04140 |
| May 20, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| LaShonda A Hunt |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 10, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 ENTERED JUDGMENT. Mailed notice. (jg, ) |
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: On 6/5/24, defendant Jose Vega recently filed a pro se appearance #10 in this case and submitted a letter #11 to the Court. However, on 5/22/24, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint #9 and terminated the case. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of the Court's 5/22/24 order #9 to Defendant Vega. Mailed notice. (jg, ) |
| Filing 11 STATEMENT by Jose Vega. (Received via box.com on 06/05/24) (aee, ) |
| Filing 10 PRO SE Appearance by Defendant Jose Vega. (Received via box.com on 06/05/24) (aee, ) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: On May 20, 2024, Self-Represented Plaintiffs Ana Ortiz and Antonio Bryant filed a one-page hand-written complaint #1 alleging that Defendant Jose Vega assaulted Bryant, harassed Ortiz, and denied Ortiz parenting time. Based on these allegations, the Court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore dismisses the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."); Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2008) ("[I]t has been the virtually universally accepted practice of the federal courts to permit any party to challenge or, indeed, to raise sua sponte the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court at any time and at any stage of the proceedings.") (quoting Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F.2d 1176, 1188 (7th Cir. 1980)). '"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,' possessing 'only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'" Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Under "federal question" jurisdiction, district courts "have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 1331. An action "arises under" federal law if "federal law creates the cause of action asserted" or "a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress." Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257-58. Under "diversity" jurisdiction, district courts "have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000... and is between... citizens of different States[,]" among other things. 28 U.S.C. 1332. On its face, Plaintiffs' complaint does not implicate either federal question or diversity jurisdiction and instead appears to assert only state-law claims. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' complaint #1 is dismissed without prejudice to pursuing any valid claims in an appropriate state court. All pending motions and deadlines are terminated as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (mjc, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (aee, ) |
| MAILED copy of the Clerk's Notice entry along with the Joint Consent Form to Ana Ortiz. (aee, ) |
| Filing 6 MOTION by Plaintiff A.B. for attorney representation. (Received at the Intake Counter on 05/20/24) (aee, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Ana Ortiz for attorney representation. (Received at the Intake Counter on 05/20/24) (aee, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Ana Ortiz for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Received at the Intake Counter on 05/20/24) (aee, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff A.B. for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Received at the Intake Counter on 05/20/24) (aee, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (Received at the Intake Counter on 05/20/24) (aee, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Ana Ortiz, A.B. (Received at the Intake Counter on 05/20/24) (aee, ) Modified on 5/21/2024 (aee, ). |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). (aee, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
