Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:15-cv-01091_de12> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:15-cv-01091_de12 RegisterActionDate "2015-06-24" @default.
- ilnd;;1:15-cv-01091_de12 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: Plaintiff's amended complaint 9 , which was stamped received on 3/23/15, was entered on the Court's docket on 6/9/15, after the Court dismissed this case on 4/13/15. In order to consider the amended complaint, the Court construes it as also being a Fed. R. Civ. P.59(e) motion to alter or amend the Courts 4/13/15 order. Although Plaintiff may have submitted an amended complaint, as he was directed to do, the same jurisdictional issues addressed in the Court's 2/25/15 initial review order still exist. The amended complaint, like the original one, states only a state-law claim of defamation, which does not support federal subject matter jurisdiction, and provides no indication of diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and the Defendants or the requisite amount to support diversity jurisdiction in this Court. Having received and considered Plaintiff's amended complaint, it is clear that this Court has neither subject-matter nor diversity jurisdiction over this case. Construing Plaintiff's amended complaint as including a Rule 59(e) motion challenging the 4/13/15 dismissal order, the motion is denied. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008). As stated in the Court's prior order, this case remains dismissed for the reasons set out in the 2/25/15 order. Signed by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 6/24/2015. Mailed notice (aee, ) (Entered: 06/25/2015)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:15-cv-01091_de12 AdministrativeID "10" @default.
- ilnd;;1:15-cv-01091_de12 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ilnd;;1:15-cv-01091_de12 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:15-cv-01091_de9 @default.