Maxie v. Wal-Mart Store, No. 3:2009cv00260 - Document 9 (N.D. Ind. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Motion for leave to proceed in forma paueris is also DENIED. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 9/1/09. (sdf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION MICHAEL A. MAXIE, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:09-CV-260 OPINION AND ORDER Michael A. Maxie, a pro se plaintiff, filed this case by completing a form complaint for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. (DE 1.) The same day, he also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (DE 2.) I dismissed the Complaint without prejudice, permitting Maxie to refile his Complaint to correct the deficiencies. (DE 6, at 7.) Maxie filed an Amended Complaint, and his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was reactivated. (DE 7; DE 8.) Upon review of the allegations in Maxie s Amended Complaint, he has not corrected the deficiencies, and therefore the Court must dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In my order dismissing the Complaint without Prejudice, I concluded that on the facts Maxie presented, he did not state a claim for relief under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I informed Maxie that the only way he could avoid dismissal would be to state a claim for relief in federal court through diversity jurisdiction. The Order stated that would have to allege a claim under a state law by showing that he and Wal-mart are not citizens of the same state and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Maxie s Amended Complaint fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. The Amended Complaint does not state that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. It actually leaves out a dollar figure altogether. (DE 7, at 3.) Further, he does not allege that he and Wal-mart are citizens of different states. (DE 7, at 2.) Because Maxie did not allege the facts as instructed in my previous Order and does not allege any other facts that state a claim, the Amended Complaint does not present a federal or state law claim that this Court can decide. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons as well as the reasons stated in my previous Order dismissing this case without prejudice (DE 3), Maxie s reactivated motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (DE 8) is DENIED, and the case is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: September 1, 2009 s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
