10th Cir.

Mitchell v. Haa, et al.

June 26, 2026 ·2:24-CV-02501-JAR-TJJ ·Panel Decision ·Allison H. Eid · By Aisha Johnson

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a land ownership dispute due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish either federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:43

Background

Tonya Lynn Mitchell, appearing pro se, sued Lin Haa and Sai Liu to contest the lawful ownership of a parcel of land in Lenexa, Kansas. The district court dismissed her suit due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court’s reasoning

The court affirmed that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and must have a statutory basis. Mitchell failed to assert a specific cause of action under federal laws or the Constitution, precluding federal question jurisdiction. Additionally, diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because both Mitchell and the defendants were domiciled in Kansas.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they must have a statutory basis for their jurisdiction.

Dutcher v. Matheson, 377 F.3d 980, 984 (10th Cir. 2013)

What it means going forward

The dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction stands, and the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as the appeal is deemed frivolous.