Swint v. Seven - Pro Se Complaint Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 22, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Robert James Swint v. Seven

District Court, W.D. Kentucky

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:26-cv-00204

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (12)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26CV-P204-JHM

ROBERT JAMES SWINT PLAINTIFF

v.

SEVEN DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Robert James Swint filed the instant pro se action. A review of the complaint
reveals that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, and the Court will
dismiss the case.
I.
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Columbia County Jail in St. Helens, Oregon. He lists the
Defendant as “Seven.” Under the heading “Fact,” Plaintiff states, “Seven nations, seven seas,
seven deadly sins. 7b. 4Oceans, 1; Director Present and Movie: Match.” He also states, “Imaging
reading this on your screen, the one that you see on the screen with your eyes; having the 5-layered
dragon system reverse engineered installed followed by your own lair. Time to start the reception.
Signal Acquiring.” Under “Summary and Conclusion,” Plaintiff states, “Imagine this is how ‘they’
did it. I want reimbursed for this brilliant work. I want 2.7 million immedietly and 36 startup v
check sum compl. 45 trillion total sent; now *#06#.”
II.
The Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The duty to be less
stringent with pro se complaints, however, “does not require [the Court] to conjure up unpled
allegations,” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted), and the Court
is not required to create a claim for a pro se plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518
F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require the “courts to explore
exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court
from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest
arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, [775 F.2d

1274, 1278](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/460183/bruce-beaudett-v-city-of-hampton-city-attorneys-a-paul-burton-and-w/#1278) (4th Cir. 1985).
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, “If the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” It is axiomatic
that federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and their powers are enumerated in
Article III of the Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Hudson v. Coleman, 347 F.3d 138, 141 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[I]t is well established that federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by the Constitution
and statute.”). “Jurisdiction defines the contours of the authority of courts to hear and decide cases,
and, in so doing, it dictates the scope of the judiciary’s influence.” Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin &

Assocs. Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 606 (6th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Cobb v. Contract
Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543, 548-49 (6th Cir. 2006). The party that seeks to invoke a federal district
court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the court’s authority to hear the case.
Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Moreover, federal courts have an independent duty to determine
whether they have jurisdiction and to “police the boundaries of their own jurisdiction.” Douglas, 150 F.3d at 607 (quoting Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 165 (11th Cir.
1997)).
In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal

2
question be presented on the face of the complaint.” Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph
Ctys., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff cites no coherent facts to support a claim for
the violation of his constitutional rights or any other federal cause of action. Therefore, the
complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.
Additionally, Plaintiff fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. For a federal court to have

diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332, there must be complete diversity—which
means that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant—and the amount
in controversy must exceed $75,000. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Plaintiff
fails to state any facts to support diversity jurisdiction.
Finally, “a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the
allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of
merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). A
claim lacks an arguable basis in fact if it is “‘premised on clearly baseless factual allegations that

describe fantastic or delusional scenarios, rising to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible.’” Selvy v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 371 F. Supp. 2d 905, 908 (E.D. Mich. May
31, 2005) (quoting Tenn. ex rel. David Francis Fair v. Comm’r, No. 3:04-cv-494, 2004 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 26677, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 4, 2004)). The Court concludes that the complaint meets
the standard for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), as well.

3
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction
over this action, and the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order.
Date: April 22, 2026
Ar layf
Joseph H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge
United States District Court
ce: Plaintiff, pro se
4414.010