IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION RAY ADAMS PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:20-cv-40-DPM

BRYAN MILLER and KAREN MILLER DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Adams’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Ne 1, is granted. He has some income but can’t afford the filing fee. 2. The Court must screen his complaint.

(e)(2). Adams has not adequately alleged subject matter jurisdiction: under the diversity statute,

(a), the parties must be citizens of different states; and Adams does not plead the citizenship of either Bryan Miller or Karen Miller. It is also unclear what either defendant did to offend Adams. A complaint must contain specific facts that plausibly support a claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). The Court notes with concern Adams’s request for relief. No 2 at 5. Perhaps it is hyperbolic. The biblical reference to Herod and John the Baptist is clear. But no United States court can afford the relief Adams seeks. The complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Lee v. Airgas Mid-South, Inc.,

(8th Cir. 2015).

So Ordered. Ante D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 3 Hoary R020

£0.