Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Edwards

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

December 12, 2017

JEANINE L. JACKSON and JOHN DOE, Plaintiffs,
v.
DANIE EDWARDS, NINA C. HARRIS, DARREL CRAWFORD, JOSHUA STORMS, MICHAEL NICHOLS, TIM WINTERS, and MATT BARNES, Defendants.

         ORDER DISMISSING FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; VACATING THE CLERK'S SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS TO DEFENDANTS CRAWFORD, EDWARDS AND STORMS; VACATING THE CLERK'S SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS TO DEFENDANTS NICHOLS AND WINTERS; DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT BARNES'S MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DKT. NO. 14) AND TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 22); AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO STRIKE DEFENDANT EDWARDS'S CONSENT/REFUSAL (DKT. NO. 17), ENLARGE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS (DKT. NO. 18) AND STRIKE DEFENDANT BARNES'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 25)

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER, United States District Judge

         I. Introduction

         On January 27, 2017, the plaintiff, who is representing herself, [1] filed a forty-seven page complaint based on comments allegedly posted about her on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Dkt. No. 1. After the plaintiff posted her own opinions about various athletes, others responded with what the plaintiff characterizes as nothing less than a “cyberattack.” The plaintiff has sued Matt Barnes, a professional basketball player with the Golden State Warriors, and six other individuals from Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and Arizona, alleging violations of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and various state common laws.

         On September 12, 2017, after the plaintiff requested that it do so, the clerk's office entered default against defendants Crawford, Edwards and Storms. Two days later, again at the plaintiff's request, the clerk's office entered default as to defendants Michael Nichols and Tim Waters.

         Because this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case, however, the clerk's office did not have authority to enter default, and the court must dismiss the case.

         II. Complaint

         Since January of 2014, the plaintiff has been a member of a Facebook group known as Sports Global, where members post pictures of sports figures and discuss sports topics. Id. at ¶51. The plaintiff asserts that she posted pictures of Barnes and other athletes, such as Kobe Bryant and Floyd Mayweather. Id. at ¶¶59, 60. The plaintiff and other Sports Global members- including Edwards, Winters, Harris, Storms and Crawford-have diverging opinions on Dwyane Wade and Serena Williams. Id. at ¶¶69-75. Edwards and others allegedly made disparaging comments about the plaintiff, posted offensive pictures of the plaintiff and contacted Barnes to suggest he get a restraining order. Id. at ¶¶81, 82, 94-97, 100-105, 111, 121, 140, 141. The plaintiff alleges that because of the defendants' actions, she

has been extremely paranoid, depressed, constantly looking over her shoulders, crying, has loss of appetite, has a hard time remaining focused on projects, has lost interest in her business ventures, suffered loss of income, and has sought medical attention which includes counseling and has gone to extreme measures by contemplating on attending a Wisconsin Conceal Carry Class to be legally allowed to purchase and carry protection to protect herself.

Id. at ¶143.

         III. Analysis

         A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says that a court must dismiss a case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Title 28, United States Code §1331 provides for federal question jurisdiction, and §1332 provides for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). Section 1343 provides jurisdiction for claims arising under the Civil Rights Acts. 28 U.S.C. §1343. If a plaintiff has otherwise established a basis for the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, the court also may, in its discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. 28 U.S.C. §1367. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343(3) and (4) and 28 U.S.C. §§1367(a) and 1441.

         1. Federal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.