◆ SpookStack

e.g.,there is no federal question at issue,the parties are not completely diverse,or the amount in controversy does not exceed $50,000.None of these grounds exists here,or in the other three(3) cases dismissed in the same manner by appell- ee,Stiehl.In resolving a facial,or technical attack on a com~ plaint's jurisdictional allegations,the court must accept the plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations as true.Gibbs vs.Buck, 307 US 66,59 S Ct 725m83 L Ed 1111(1939); Holt vs.United States, 46 F3d 1000 at 1002(10Th Cir.1995),The district court in substantive attacks on subject matter jurisdiction,should not assume the truthfulness of the complaint,rather enjoys wide discretion to consider affidavits or other documents,as those submitted by Appellant to the court,the court should conduct a limited evidentiary hearing,none of these factors were considered or passed on by district judge.An order chall- enges subject matter jurisdiction by the court may be raised, Emrich vs.Touche Ross & Co.,846 F 2d 1190(9th Cir.1988),But here,Appellee in a rush to judgment by district judge,Sua Sponte dismissed these four(4) Paid Civil Rights Complaints With-Prejudice,such conduct in itself,clearly shows racial bias,prejudice,and Bigotry,in favor of White,Rich,Famous and powerful Defendants against the Appellant by the court.Appell- ant's complaints clearly demonstrated non-frivolous claims and based on federal law,Thomson vs.Gaskill, 314 US 442,62 S Ct 673,88 L Ed(1942); Lujan vs.Defenders of Wildife, 504 US 555, at 561,112 S Ct 2130 at 2136m119 L Ed 2d 351(1992),Appellant accepted his burden of establishing the element of jurisdict- ion,in the Eastern district of Illinois. ~26-