Ketiku v. Mint Urban Infinity , 620 F. App'x 680 ( 2015 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 30, 2015
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
KIMBERLY KETIKU,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 15-1313
(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01322-LTB)
MINT URBAN INFINITY - BRITTANIA (D. Colo.)
HEIGHTS APARTMENTS - CARDINAL
GROUP MANAGEMENT AND
ADVISORY,
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Kimberly Ketiku appeals from the dismissal of her pro se complaint. Because
she alleges no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, we affirm.
Ketiku filed a complaint alleging that mold and other conditions in her
apartment, owned by Appellee, caused her severe health problems. The district court
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
dismissed her complaint because she asserted only state law claims, and alleged no
basis for federal jurisdiction. Ketiku timely appealed.
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and can only decide cases that fall
within the bounds of that jurisdiction. Morris v. City of Hobart, 39 F.3d 1105, 1111
(10th Cir. 1994). The two most commonly utilized forms of federal jurisdiction are
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and federal-question jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1331. Ketiku noted that the parties are domiciled in the state of
Colorado, and thus has failed to show diversity as required by § 1332. And her only
asserted causes of action are citations to “§ 38-12-503, § 38-12-505[, and] § 38-12-
507,” which appear to be referring to Colorado state law. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 38-
12-503, -505, -507 (concerning warranty of habitability).1 Ketiku has thus provided
no basis upon which we can conclude that she has raised a federal question.
Because Ketiku has not alleged a basis to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal
courts, we AFFIRM the dismissal of her complaint without prejudice. We GRANT
Ketiku’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
1
Although we clearly lack jurisdiction as a federal court, a state court may
have jurisdiction to hear Ketiku’s claims as a court of general jurisdiction. See Colo.
Const. art. VI, § 9.
2