Walls v. Walls

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRI J. WALLS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:25-cv-01812-RWS
)
DENISE WALLS, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ODER TO SHOW CAUSE
Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Terri J. Walls’s Motions for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis. (Docs. 2 and 6). Having reviewed the Motions and financial information, the
Court will grant the Motions and allow Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, but will require
Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
The Amended Complaint
Plaintiff brings this civil complaint against Defendant Denise Walls, alleging that she
changed the locks on Plaintiff’s mother’s house and is prohibiting Plaintiff from entering. Plaintiff
states that her mother had a stroke. 	Plaintiff is her mother’s attorney-in-fact under her durable
power of attorney. Plaintiff states that because she has been denied entry into her mother’s house,
she cannot provide the necessary care for her mother or oversee her well-being. Defendant refuses
to recognize that Plaintiff is her mother’s attorney-in-fact.
For relief, Plaintiff seeks an injunction restoring her access to her mother’s residence and
preventing Defendant from interfering with her authority under her mother’s durable power of
attorney.
Case: 4:25-cv-01812-RWS Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/13/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

-2-
Discussion
Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to decide a certain class of cases.
“Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized
by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.” Bender
v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). 	The presence of subject matter
jurisdiction is a threshold requirement that must be established in every federal case. 	Because
jurisdiction is a threshold requirement, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any
time, by any party or the court. 	Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., 567 F.3d 976, 982 (8th Cir.
2009). The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction belongs to the plaintiff. V.S. Ltd. P’ship
v. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 235 F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir. 2000).
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over both federal question cases and
diversity of citizenship cases. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Court of Spirit Lake Indian Res.,
495 F.3d 1017, 1020 (8th Cir. 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Plaintiff’s amended
complaint does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. As such, no
federal question jurisdiction exists.
Diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 	Here, Plaintiff alleges both she and
Defendant are citizens of Missouri. 	The parties are not diverse, which defeats diversity
jurisdiction. 	Even if the parties were a citizens of different states, however, Plaintiff has not
alleged the jurisdictional amount of more than $75,000 in damages, which also defeats diversity
jurisdiction.
As the proponent of this Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiff has the burden of proving subject
matter jurisdiction. 	See Bell v. Hersey Co., 557 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009). 	She has not
Case: 4:25-cv-01812-RWS Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/13/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

-3-
established either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. As a result, Plaintiff will
be required to show cause, within 21 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order to Show
Cause, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis are
GRANTED. (Docs. 2 and 6).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 21 days
of the date of this Order, why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not comply with this Order, her case
will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.
Dated this 13th day of February, 2026.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01812-RWS Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/13/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>