Hudson v. Marbley

E.D. Arkansas

Hudson v. Marbley

DecidedApril 26, 2022

Docket4:22-cv-00364

StatusUnknown

This text of Hudson v. Marbley (Hudson v. Marbley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hudson v. Marbley, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION XAVIER CORTEZ HUDSON PLAINTIFF 4:22-CV-00364-BRW TINA MARBLEY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 1) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 3) are DENIED. This case is DISMISSED. The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte at any time.1 Federal court diversity jurisdiction requires an amount in dispute over $75,000 and all the parties on one side of the controversy must be citizens of different states from all of the parties on the other side.2

Plaintiff seeks “$5,000 or $10,000” for damages after being involved in a auto accident with Defendants. This is less than the jurisdictional minimum. Additionally, after considering the allegations in the Complaint, I find to a legal certainty that Plaintiff’s claims could not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.3 IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of April, 2022.

Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 1993). 228 U.S.C. § 1332; Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 70 (1941). 3Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 388 (8th Cir. 1994).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION XAVIER CORTEZ HUDSON PLAINTIFF 4:22-CV-00364-BRW TINA MARBLEY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 1) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 3) are DENIED. This case is DISMISSED. The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte at any time.1 Federal court diversity jurisdiction requires an amount in dispute over $75,000 and all the parties on one side of the controversy must be citizens of different states from all of the parties on the other side.2

Plaintiff seeks “$5,000 or $10,000” for damages after being involved in a auto accident with Defendants. This is less than the jurisdictional minimum. Additionally, after considering the allegations in the Complaint, I find to a legal certainty that Plaintiff’s claims could not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.3 IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of April, 2022.

Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 1993). 228 U.S.C. § 1332; Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 70 (1941). 3Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 388 (8th Cir. 1994).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hudson v. Marbley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-marbley-ared-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack