Tuduj v. Cooney

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

TOM TUDUJ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 20-cv-1283-SMY ) JOHN F. COONEY; LEWIS, BRISBOIS, ) BISGAARD, & SMITH LLP; AND ) DANNA MCKITRICK, PC, ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007) (“it is the responsibility of a court to make an independent evaluation of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in every case”). In this case, Plaintiff Tom Tuduj, who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, asserts legal malpractice claims against his former attorney John Cooney and the law firms that employed him. The Complaint states that “[t]he Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims of violation of Federal Constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391” (Doc. 2 at 1). However, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under the Constitution or federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. His Complaint concerns allegations of legal malpractice claims, which are state law claims. Further, there is no statement in the Complaint that the parties are of diverse citizenship (See 28 U.S.C. § 1332), nor is there any other basis of jurisdiction that can be gleaned from the Complaint. Plaintiff, as the proponent of federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case, bears the burden of proof as to the existence of such jurisdiction. See Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 540 Cir. 2006). Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter Jurisdiction. All pending motions are TERMINATED as moot and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 24, 2021 2021.08.24 HMw) H ntl 2.03:41 -05'00' STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2