IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

CLINTELL COTHRAN, SR. PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 3:23-cv-00095-JM

ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY SMALL BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CENTER DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff Clintell Cothran’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.1 He reports living on social security income.2 The law requires the Court to screen the Complaint.3 Cothran sues ASU’s Small Business & Technology Development Center alleging he was told he would only receive funding for his business if he agreed to lie.4 He does not specify any further details other than saying that he refused to lie because he lives “for JESUS CHRIST.” (Id.). He seeks one billion dollars in damages. The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his case. Cases over which federal courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction must be dismissed.5 There are two basic types of subject-matter jurisdiction: diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction. Neither exists here. So this case must be dismissed. Diversity jurisdiction exists if the dispute is between “citizens of different states” and the

1 See Martin-Trigona v. Stewart,

(8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (complaint can be filed if plaintiff qualifies by economic status under

(a)).

2 Pl.’s Mtn. for Leave to Proceed IFP, Doc. 1.

3

(e)(2).

4 Complaint, Doc. 2.

5 FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.° Although Cothran’s alleged damages meets the amount in controversy requirement, the parties are not diverse. Accordingly, there is no diversity Jurisdiction on which this Court can hear this case. Cothran also fails to assert a federal question arising “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.

(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED this Ist day of May, 2023.

(I ED ht Fc JUDGE

6 See

. 7 See

.