GARNER v. LOPEZ-HERNANDEZ

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: May 27, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00971
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MARI GARNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:25-cv-00971-JPH-MKK ) ADRIAN LOPEZ-HERNANDEZ, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER I. Granting in forma pauperis status

Plaintiff Mari Garner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. [2]; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). While in forma pauperis status allows Ms. Garner to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, she remains liable for the full fees. Rosas v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chi., 748 F. App'x 64, 65 (7th Cir. 2019) ("Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court may allow a litigant to proceed 'without prepayment of fees,' . . . but not without ever paying fees."). No payment is due at this time. II. Show cause for subject-matter jurisdiction Ms. Garner's complaint alleges that during her romantic relationship and marriage with Defendant Adrian Lopez-Hernandez, he "utilized false identities" when applying for housing, purchasing vehicles, and litigating custody and divorce proceedings. Dkt. 1 at 2–3. Ms. Garner alleges that this led to "negative flags at the Indiana BMV, loss of the mobile home, repossession of the vehicle," and her filing bankruptcy. Id. at 3. She seeks monetary damages. Id. at 6. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In order to hear and

rule on the merits of a case, a federal court must have subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues. Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). If the Court determines at any time that it lacks subject- matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Evergreen Square of Cudahy v. Wis. Hous. & Econ. Dev. Auth., 776 F.3d 463, 465 (7th Cir. 2015) ("[F]ederal courts are obligated to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte."). The Supreme Court has explained the two basic ways to establish

subject-matter jurisdiction: The basic statutory grants of federal-court subject- matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Section 1331 provides for federal-question jurisdiction, § 1332 for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. She invokes § 1332 jurisdiction when she presents a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (cleaned up). Ms. Garner's complaint alleges federal-question jurisdiction. She cites 18 U.S.C. § 1028, which makes it a crime to fraudulently use an identification document. But that is a criminal statute and does not provide a civil cause of action. Ms. Garner's remaining claims appear to allege violations of state law. Id. at 4–5 (alleging fraud and misrepresentation; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and equitable tolling and fraudulent concealment). However, a federal court may only

adjudicate state-law claims under federal-question jurisdiction when there is also a properly brought federal-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Therefore, the Court does not appear to have federal-question jurisdiction over Ms. Garner's claims. So, for this Court to have subject-matter jurisdiction over Ms. Garner's complaint, her complaint would have to come within the Court's diversity jurisdiction. To invoke diversity jurisdiction, the complaint must allege that Ms. Garner and Mr. Lopez-Hernandez are citizens of different states and that

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, the state citizenship of a United States citizen is not based on where she resides, but the state in which she is domiciled. Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 2009). This is the state where she has "a permanent home and principal establishment, and to which [she] has the intention of returning whenever [she] is absent therefrom." Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2009). A non-citizen's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes depends on whether he has been

admitted to the United States lawfully. If he has been lawfully admitted, his citizenship is where he's domiciled. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) ("[T]he district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State."); see also Intec USA, LLC v. Engle, 467 F.3d 1038, 1042 (7th Cir. 2006). In contrast, "[a]liens who have entered the United States illegally are not considered citizens of one of the fifty states; rather, they are still considered citizens of a foreign state." Napoles v. Johnson, No. 12 C 10220, 2013 WL 1943304, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2013). Here, Ms. Garner's complaint only alleges where she resides, not the state in which she is domiciled. Dkt. 1 at 2. And while Ms. Garner alleges that Mr. Lopez-Hernandez is a "foreign national" born in Mexico, her complaint does not specify whether Mr. Lopez-Hernandez has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. Id. Therefore, the complaint as it was filed does not contain sufficient information for the Court to determine if it has diversity jurisdiction over Ms. Garner's claims. Ms. Garner shall have through June 27, 2025 to file an amended complaint or otherwise show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In doing so, she must clearly show (1) the federal law giving rise to her claims, (2) that the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, or (3) another basis for the Court's jurisdiction. If Ms. Garner does not respond, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Date: 5/27/2025 Sjamu Patrick Harbor James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

MARI GARNER 615 Maple Street Columbus, IN 47201