Thornton v. Omni Glass & Paint, Inc.

98 F. App'x 557
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedMay 26, 2004
DocketNo. 04-1219
StatusPublished

This text of 98 F. App'x 557 (Thornton v. Omni Glass & Paint, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thornton v. Omni Glass & Paint, Inc., 98 F. App'x 557 (7th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

ORDER

Scott Thornton sued his former employer, Omni Glass and Paint, alleging a bizarre conspiracy in which Omni hired a group of people called “Devine Intervention” to drug him and “extract his DNA” in an attempt to imprison him “through the revocation of [his] probation.” The district court dismissed Thornton’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Thornton failed to show that his claim was based on federal law or involved a dispute between citizens of dif[558]*558ferent states. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

The district court was correct. A frivolous suit can be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the factual circumstances alleged in the complaint cannot constitute a violation of federal law. United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chem. Co., 322 F.3d 942, 950 (7th Cir.2003) (en banc). Thornton’s allegations are nonsensical and frivolous, so there can be no basis for jurisdiction. See Williams v. Aztar Ind. Gaming Corp., 351 F.3d 294, 299-300 (7th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 F. App'x 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thornton-v-omni-glass-paint-inc-ca7-2004.