Alexander v. Street
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:24-cv-01489
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Alexander v. Street, Judge Bryan dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and restricted Alexander’s future filings in Minnesota federal court.
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr.’s case was dismissed without prejudice; his fee-waiver application was denied as moot; and his future filings in the District of Minnesota were restricted unless approved by a judge or filed through counsel.
What happened
In Alexander v. Street, Jomari E. Alexander, Sr. sued Dyanna Street, Kevin Shoeberg, and Samuel Striker over alleged civil-rights violations involving a prior state-court matter.
The court found that the complaint’s allegations— including defamation, assault, and theft—arose under state law, and that unspecified references to civil rights did not establish federal jurisdiction.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan dismissed the action without prejudice, denied Alexander’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot, and restricted Alexander from filing new cases in the District of Minnesota without prior judicial approval or a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. Street · No. 0:24-cv-01489
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- May 10, 2024
Background
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr. filed a complaint against Dyanna Street, Kevin Shoeberg, and Samuel Striker. The complaint concerned alleged violations connected to a 2019 Minnesota state-court case involving Striker. Alexander alleged, among other things, defamation, perjury, false crimes, an armed confrontation, theft in the courthouse, and unspecified civil-rights violations. He also applied to proceed without paying filing fees.
Jurisdictional ruling
The court explained that federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they may hear only cases within the authority granted to them by federal law and the Constitution. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), a court must dismiss an action if it determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court concluded that the complaint did not implicate federal law. It stated that defamation, assault, and theft are state-law causes of action. It also concluded that Alexander’s general references to unspecified civil rights did not, without more, establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Filing restriction
The court noted that Alexander had filed seven cases in the District of Minnesota during the previous two months and had indicated that more lawsuits were forthcoming. The court also noted that it had previously explained the need to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction and had warned that continued hurried and unjustified filings could lead to a filing restriction.
The court therefore placed Alexander on the District of Minnesota’s restricted-filer list. He may not file a new case in that court unless he first obtains approval from a district judge or magistrate judge or is represented by counsel.
Disposition
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied as moot Alexander’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and ordered the filing restriction described above.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.