govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-5_26-cv-04049-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
 
BEN VENTURA, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
FRAN VELLA-MARRONE, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
Pro se1 plaintiff Ben Ventura has filed a perfunctory Complaint. It alleges that 
defendants “frequently violated due process” and that the “compensation demand is above the 
jurisdictional limit.” Doc. 1 at 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 1–2). The court lacks jurisdiction over this 
“patently insubstantial complaint[.]” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989). 
Plaintiff’s passing reference to due process, unadorned with any factual allegation, is the sort of 
“wholly insubstantial” and “obviously frivolous” claim that can’t suffice to invoke federal-court 
jurisdiction. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974) (quotation cleaned up). The court thus 
dismisses this case without prejudice. See Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1216 
(10th Cir. 2006) (“A longstanding line of cases from this circuit holds that where the district 
court dismisses an action for lack of jurisdiction, . . . the dismissal must be without prejudice.”); 
 
1 Because Mr. Ventura represents himself, the c ourt construes his filings liberally but won’t serve 
as his advocate. See Adams v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 168 F.4th 1271, 1275 n.1 (10th Cir. 2026). 

2 
 
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).2 
Because this Order dismisses the Complaint, plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In 
Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is moot, and the court denies it on that basis. The court directs the 
Clerk of Court to enter Judgment consistent with this Order and close this case. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff Ben Ventura’s 
Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed. The court directs the Clerk of Court to enter Judgment and 
close this case. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma 
Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated this 21st day of May, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas. 
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree 
Daniel D. Crabtree 
United States District Judge 
 
 
2 Even if plaintiff’s Complaint alleged more, th e court still would lack subject matter jurisdiction 
over it. The Complaint says nothing about the citizenship of the parties, so the court can’t exercise 
diversity jurisdiction. See Rice v. Off. of Servicemembers’ Grp. Life Ins., 260 F.3d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir. 
2001) (explaining that, for the court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, “the complaint must allege that the 
plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states”). And plaintiff’s passing reference to “due 
process” is insufficient to invoke federal-question jurisdiction. See Parker v. WI Waterstone, LLC, 790 F. 
App’x 926, 929 (10th Cir. 2019) (“[Plaintiff’s] mere use of federal law labels is insufficient to invoke 
federal question jurisdiction.”). 

Passage view · GavelSight