United States District Court, D. Kansas
EUGENIA M. HOUSTON, Plaintiff,
UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Eugenia M. Houston brings this action pro se and
in forma pauperis, alleging civil rights violations
against the Unified Government of Wyandotte County, the
Kansas City, Kansas Fire Department, and the Kansas City,
Kansas Police Department. Plaintiff sought leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 3), which Magistrate Judge
Teresa J. James granted on October 23, 2018, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). As a result, her Amended Complaint
is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires the Court to dismiss the
case if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. In her order granting Plaintiff's leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5), Magistrate Judge
James ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by November
2, 2018, as to why this action should not be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court has withheld service of process pending § 1915
review following receipt of Plaintiff's response, if any,
to the order to show cause. Plaintiff has not responded to
the order to show cause, and the time to do so has expired.
Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge James's analysis of
the issues and agrees with her that Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint should be dismissed. Liberally construing
Plaintiff's pleadings in accordance with the pro
se standard,  Plaintiff fails to provide a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Plaintiff does not allege facts
sufficient to show how her civil rights were violated and
does not articulate what protected right Defendants allegedly
violated. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to show good
cause why her claims against Defendants should not be
dismissed and has failed to do so. For substantially the same
reasons identified by Judge James in her order to show cause,
Plaintiff's claims are dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P.
to the extent that Plaintiff's federal civil rights
claims are dismissed, there is no independent basis for
subject matter jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff's state
law claims that may remain. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, “[w]henever it appears . . . that the
court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court
shall dismiss the action.” If a court determines it
lack subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case
regardless of the stage of the
proceedings.” Although in her Amended Complaint
Plaintiff asserts diversity jurisdiction over her claims,
diversity jurisdiction is not present because she also
alleges that the parties are all citizens of
Kansas. Plaintiff asserts she is a citizen of the
State of Kansas and Defendants are also considered Kansas
citizens for federal diversity purposes. Moreover, the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any
potential state law claims Plaintiff intended to raise in her
Complaint. Therefore, the Court also has a basis for
dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this action
is dismissed in its entirety without
IS SO ORDERED.
 On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed
an Amended Complaint (Doc. 4), which adds a one-page
attachment containing more details about her factual
 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
 Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
Tuck v. United Servs. Auto
Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. ...