MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JULIE A. ROBINSON, District Judge.
On January 22, 2013, Plaintiff Quinn Ngiendo filed a pro se Complaint against Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. ("Sedgwick"), Target Corporation Incorporated ("Target"), Donald P. Pipino Company, Ltd. ("Pipino Company"), and Simon Property Group, Inc. ("Simon Property") alleging that she suffered injuries from a fall at a Topeka, Kansas, Target parking lot on January 19, 2011. On June 19, 2013, the Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss but permitted Plaintiff an additional period of time to seek leave to amend. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and/or Alternative (Doc. 43), attaching the Proposed Amended Complaint. The motion is fully briefed and the Court is prepared to rule. As explained more fully below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and dismisses this case in its entirety.
Plaintiff's original complaint alleged that she is a resident of Minnesota and that Defendant Target is a Minnesota corporation with its principle place of business in Minnesota, making it a citizen of Minnesota for diversity purposes. The Court ruled in its Order of Dismissal that because Plaintiff and at least one defendant are citizens of the same state, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in the Complaint. The Court proceeded to consider whether Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to support a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction. In making this determination, the Court converted Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Construing Plaintiff's Complaint liberally, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to allege several of the elements necessary to assert an ADA claim. The Court dismissed the Complaint but allowed Plaintiff leave to amend to cure the deficiencies.
Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint contains new allegations in an attempt to overcome the deficiencies found in the original Complaint. First, Plaintiff adds factual and legal allegations to her claim under the ADA. Second, Plaintiff adds the United States as a defendant. Finally, Plaintiff renews her claims that the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.
II. Legal Standard
Leave to amend a complaint is freely given when justice so requires. A party is granted leave to amend unless there is "a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, or futility of amendment." A proposed amendment is futile if the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal.
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must present factual allegations, assumed to be true, that "raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Plaintiff suggests that leave to amend should be granted on the basis of her status as a pro se litigant, since she should not be held to the same standards as an attorney in drafting her complaint. While Plaintiff is correct that the Court must read Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Proposed Amended Complaint liberally, and not hold Plaintiff to the same "stringent standards" as lawyers would be held, the Court will not "assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant, " nor will the reduced standards for pro se litigants "relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based."
Defendants ask the Court to deny leave to amend because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the proposed amendments, and thus would not survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). A court lacking jurisdiction must dismiss the case, regardless of the stage of the proceeding, when it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking. The party who seeks to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction is proper; here, "[P]laintiff bears the burden of showing why the case should not be dismissed." Mere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are not enough.
This Court may have subject matter jurisdiction over a case in two primary ways: diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction exists only when the amount-in-controversy requirement is met and the parties are completely diverse,  a condition not met in this case. The Court may also have subject matter jurisdiction when the United States is named as a defendant,  or when the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over claims that "form part of the same case or controversy" as a claim the Court does have original jurisdiction over. In the Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims that jurisdiction lies on one of the following three grounds: (1) federal question jurisdiction based on the ADA claim; (2) under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 because it names the United States as a defendant; and (3) supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
A. Plaintiff's ADA Claim
In the Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim against Defendants under the ADA and includes new allegations that were not included in the original Complaint. Because jurisdiction is predicated on the existence of a federal question, determining whether the complaint contains a short and plain statement of the ...