Alexander v. Street

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota May 10, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jomari E. Alexander, Sr., Case No. 24-CV-1489 (JMB/ECW)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Dyanna Street, Kevin Shoeberg, and
Samuel Striker,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jomari E. Alexander, Sr.’s Complaint
(Doc. No. 1) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP Application). (Doc. No. 2.)
For the following reasons, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In 2019, Alexander sued Samuel Striker, a landlord, in Minnesota state district
court. (See Register of Actions, Alexander v. Striker, No. 02-CV-19-6626 (Minn. Dist.
Ct.).1) On April 23, 2024, Alexander filed the instant action alleging that Striker, Striker’s
attorney, and the judge presiding over the 2019 state-court case committed the following
violations:
Civil Rights Violations that include, Defamation, Perjury,
False Crimes, Gun Weaponed Confrontation and Courtroom
Theft from a Prejudice and Biased Judge who repeatedly broke
the law to help herself, the Lawyer and the Landlord in Racist

1 The Court takes judicial notice of public records, including certain state-court records.
See, e.g., Stutzka v. McCarville,

420 F.3d 757

, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005).   
         wthaeyses  corfi macecse pintisnidge t hthee c Criomuersth sohues aen bdu tihldei nlagw aynedr  carcicmuesse do umtsei doef  
         the Courthouse building that I’m charged with a Felony right    
         now.                                                            

(Doc. No. 1 at 3.)                                                        
    As Alexander has previously been informed, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited 
jurisdiction.”  Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

511 U.S. 375, 377

 (1994).  Under 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks 
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”  Cf. Hart v. United States,

630 F.3d 1085, 1089

 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court can address subject-matter 
jurisdiction on its own).  It is thus Alexander’s responsibility to make allegations sufficient 
to establish the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over his case.  See, e.g., Kokkonen,

511 U.S. at 377

.  Upon review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that the allegations do 
not implicate federal law.  For instance, defamation, assault, and theft are causes of action 

that arise under state law.  Likewise, Alexander’s general references to unspecified “civil 
rights” in the Complaint do not, without more, establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.  
Therefore, the Court dismisses this action and denies the IFP Application as moot. 
    The Court also observes that Alexander has filed seven cases within the previous 
two months in this District.  Moreover, in one of his most recent complaints, he indicates 

that more lawsuits are forthcoming.  (See, e.g., Compl. at 14, Alexander v. Alexander, No. 
24-CV-1503 (NEB/DLM) (D. Minn. Apr. 24, 2024).)  The Court has repeatedly explained 
that Alexander must establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction for actions he files in 
federal court.  (See Order at 2–3, Alexander v. Alexander, No. 24-CV-1228 (ECT/JFD) (D. 
Minn. Apr. 18, 2024) (dismissing action); Order at 3–4, Alexander v. Nelson, No. 24-CV-
1229 (PAM/DLM) (D. Minn. Apr. 17, 2024) (same); Order at 2–3, Alexander v. All Hopes 
Inc. et al, No. 24-CV-907 (ECT/JFD) (D. Minn. Mar. 14, 2024) (same).)  The Court has 
even gone so far as to warn Alexander that, if he continues to “fil[e] suits hastily, without 
taking due account of whether they are justified and appropriate,” he may face a filing 
restriction.  Order at 2–3, No. 24-CV-1228 (ECT/JFD) (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2024).  Despite 

this warning, Alexander has filed two more suits, including this one, and as noted above, 
indicated  an  intent  to  file  additional  lawsuits.    Therefore,  the  Court  places  a  filing 
restriction on Alexander.  The requirements below will prevent Alexander from abusing 
the judicial process while also preserving his court access for nonfrivolous litigation.

ORDER

    Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                                      
    1.   This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of 
         Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

    2.   Alexander’s IFP Application (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.     

    3.   The Clerk of Court shall place Alexander on the District’s restricted-filer list. 

    4.   Alexander shall be prohibited from filing any new cases in the U.S. District 
         Court for the District of Minnesota unless he (1) first obtains prior approval 
         from a District Judge or Magistrate Judge, or (2) is represented by counsel. 

    LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 

 Dated: May 10, 2024             /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan    ____            
                                 Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan                  
                                 United States District Court