WINCHESTER v. 20th JUDICIAL PROSECUTOR'S, OFFICE, 4:17-CV-00504-BRW. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20171002959
Visitors: 19
Filed: Sep. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON , District Judge . Pending is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff has not responded and the time for doing so has passed. Plaintiff's Complaint sets out claims of defamation and civil conspiracy against the Arkansas 20th Judicial Prosecutor's Office and prosecutor Cody Hiland. The allegations are based on Plaintiff's employment as a Mayflower, Arkansas police officer and his termination from that position. Federal court diversity jurisdiction requ
Summary: ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON , District Judge . Pending is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff has not responded and the time for doing so has passed. Plaintiff's Complaint sets out claims of defamation and civil conspiracy against the Arkansas 20th Judicial Prosecutor's Office and prosecutor Cody Hiland. The allegations are based on Plaintiff's employment as a Mayflower, Arkansas police officer and his termination from that position. Federal court diversity jurisdiction requi..
More
ORDER
BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge.
Pending is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff has not responded and the time for doing so has passed.
Plaintiff's Complaint sets out claims of defamation and civil conspiracy against the Arkansas 20th Judicial Prosecutor's Office and prosecutor Cody Hiland. The allegations are based on Plaintiff's employment as a Mayflower, Arkansas police officer and his termination from that position.
Federal court diversity jurisdiction requires an amount in dispute over $75,000 and that all the parties on one side of the controversy must be citizens of different states from all of the parties on the other side.1 Based on the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges only state-law claims and all of the parties involved are citizens of Arkansas.
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 70 (1941).
Source: Leagle
