United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING
LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL ATTEST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24, 2019, Plaintiff, Philip Thomas Dentinger, filed a
Complaint against the following defendants: "The Holy
Church and all churches using the Holy name (highest ranking
paid leaders and employees whom rank as Pastors, Priests, and
'Holy Church Elite Group', (collectively referred to
as "the Defendants"). Doc. 1. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have committed the
tortious act of hurting, harming, and raping people and
persons without their consent. Plaintiff states that he is
alleging tort law claims for "negligence, negligence per
se, assault, battery, violent misconduct by licensed and
voted officials, outrageous behavior, and misrepresenting the
Holy Church as a place of peace and positivity."
Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants are in breach of:
False Claims Act, Antitrust, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations, and Freedom of Information Act.
claim for relief, Plaintiff askes the Court to permanently
close "all churches which are Holy and which use the
Holy name and all businesses and organizations which use the
Holy name." Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages in the
amount of $812, 500 because he alleges that he has personally
been hurt by the battery and assault practices of the
Defendants upon his mind and body.
has filed an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Doc.
2, and a Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. 3.
following reasons, Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis and Motion to Appoint Counsel are denied and
Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." United
States v. Afremov, 611 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir. 2010). A
district court "has a special obligation to consider
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction in every
case." Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085,
1089 (8th Cir. 2011). "This obligation includes the
concomitant responsibility 'to consider sua
sponte [the court's subject matter] jurisdiction . .
. where . . . [the court] believe[s] that jurisdiction may be
lacking.'" Id. (quoting Clark v.
Baka, 593 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)).
subject matter jurisdiction of this Court may derive from the
citizenship of the parties, see 28 U.S.C. §
1332, a federal question posed by the underlying lawsuit,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or special circumstances
covered by federal statute.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Plaintiff cites generally various federal laws as the
basis" for this Court's jurisdiction, Plaintiffs
statement of his own causes of action allege torts committed
by the Defendants and do not arise under any of these federal
statutes. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49,
60 (2009) (citing Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v.
Mottley, 221 U.S. 149, 152 (1908) (stating that the
plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action must show
that it is based upon [federal law])). Accordingly, the Court
concludes that federal question jurisdiction is lacking in
jurisdiction requires "complete diversity, that is
'where no defendant holds citizenship in the same state
where any plaintiff holds citizenship.'" Junk v.
Terminix Int'l Co.,628 F.3d 439, 445 (8th Cir.
2010) (quoting In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig.,591 F.3d 613, 620 (8th Cir. 2010)). It appears from
Plaintiffs Complaint that he is a resident of Sioux Falls,
South Dakota. The Defendants in this matter include all
churches using the Holy Name and all highest ranking paid
leaders and employees whom rank as Pastors, Priests, and
'Holy Church Elite Group'. Because the named
defendants in this case are not any identifiable entities or
persons, no claim is stated. If, however, the Defendants are
taken to include all churches and ...