United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
O. HICKEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
brought this action pro se on February 27, 2019,
alleging state law breach of contract claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332-diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction. However, upon review of Plaintiff's
Complaint, it appears that the requirements for diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction are lacking. The Court now considers
sua sponte whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and only certain
types of cases may proceed in federal court. See Dakota,
Minn. & E. R.R. Corp. v. Schieffer, 715 F.3d 712,
712 (8th Cir. 2013). Thus, “[i]t is well established
that a court has a special obligation to consider whether it
has subject matter jurisdiction in every case.”
Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th Cir.
2011) (citing Clark v. Baka, 593 F.3d 712, 714 (8th
Cir.2010). To this end, a federal court may raise the issue
of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Hayes v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 4:15-CV-04010, 2015 WL
3866783, at *2 (W.D. Ark. June 23, 2015) (citing Auto-
Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Court of Spirit Lake Indian
Reservation, 495 F.3d 1017, 1020 (8th Cir. 2007). If a
federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
a given case, that case must be dismissed. See Williams
v. Cnty. of Dakota, Neb., 687 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1332, federal courts only
have original subject matter jurisdiction over two types of
cases: (1) federal question cases; and (2) diversity of
citizenship cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. §
1332. The present action is a diversity of citizenship case.
Diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires
complete diversity. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah
Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). Complete
diversity “exists where no defendant holds citizenship
in the same state where any plaintiff holds
citizenship.” OnePoint Solutions, LLC v.
Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007). As the
party attempting to invoke diversity jurisdiction, it is
Plaintiff's burden to investigate the citizenship of each
party and properly plead the existence of diversity.
Walker by Walker v. Norwest Corp., 108 F.3d 158, 161
(8th Cir. 1997). The existence of diversity of citizenship is
determined at the time the suit in issue is instituted, not
when the cause of action arose. Blakemore v. Mo. Pac.
R.R. Co., 789 F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir. 1986). Moreover,
because this is a diversity of citizenship case, the amount
in controversy must exceed “the sum or value of $75,
000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
consideration, the Court finds that neither requirement for
diversity of citizenship jurisdiction has been satisfied.
Plaintiff alleges that she is an Arkansas citizen. However,
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants are Arkansas citizens,
and thus, not diverse. Moreover, Plaintiff's Complaint
alleges $54, 987 in damages-well below the $75, 000 threshold
required in diversity of citizenship cases.
the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this matter.
foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1)
should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT
IS SO ORDERED.
 Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1)
consists of a pre-printed form with blanks for a plaintiff to
enter handwritten information. The top of the form is
captioned “COMPLAINT FOR A CIVIL CASE ALLEGING BREACH
OF CONTRACT (28 U.S.C. § 1332; Diversity of
Citizenship).” (ECF No. 1) (emphasis in original). The
form goes on to explain subject matter jurisdiction and
diversity of citizenship jurisdiction in detail and instructs
the plaintiff on how to properly fill out the form.
 Plaintiff's Complaint also states
that her landlord ignored maintenance requests after she
filed a disability discrimination complaint and prays for
$20, 000 in disability discrimination damages. To the extent
Plaintiff has asserted any viable federal question claims
relating to disability discrimination, they remain alive in