Jean Coulter v. Blaze Tatananni, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: BIBAS, NYGAARD and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 6. Coulter's motion for change of venue is denied. Her various motions for recusal are denied as unnecessary.

Case: 17-3404

Document: 003112954011

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/12/2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-3404
___________
JEAN COULTER,
Appellant
v.
BLAZE TATANANNI; JEAN TATANANNI;
MORGAN STANLEY; RICHARD E. DIETRICK;
MICHAEL WILLSON; THOMAS RUSS;
UNKNOWN EMPLOYEE OF
MORGAN STANLEY,
in Pittsburgh (known only as “LISA”).
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. No. 2-17-cv-00629)
District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 1, 2018
Before: BIBAS, NYGAARD, and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 12, 2018)
___________
OPINION*
___________

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 17-3404

Document: 003112954011

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/12/2018

PER CURIAM
The Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York transferred to the Western
District of Pennsylvania (“the District Court”) a pro se complaint filed by Jean Coulter in
which she claimed that employees of Morgan Stanley mismanaged her checking and
investment accounts and then engaged in an information-withholding conspiracy. Coulter
predicated federal subject matter jurisdiction on both 28 U.S.C. §§ 13311 and 1332(a)(1).2
A Magistrate Judge sua sponte ordered Coulter to show cause why her case should
not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Instead of attempting to satisfy
the show cause order, however, Coulter requested recusal of the Magistrate Judge. The
Magistrate Judge refused to recuse, and concurrently recommended that the case be
dismissed. The District Court agreed with that recommendation, over Coulter’s
objections, and it dismissed the case “with prejudice, for want of subject matter
jurisdiction.” The District Court later denied Coulter’s “motion to amend the findings
pursuant to [Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 & 59] and motion for recusal.” This appeal followed.3
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(h)(3) permits a federal court to raise “at any time” the question of subject matter

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
1

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
2

3

Coulter failed to brief, and thus waived on appeal, any challenge to the denial of postjudgment relief. See Garza v. Citigroup Inc., 881 F.3d 277, 284 (3d Cir. 2018).
2

Case: 17-3404

Document: 003112954011

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/12/2018

jurisdiction, and requires dismissal if the court determines that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. Our review of a dismissal under Rule 12(h)(3) is plenary, see SEC v. Infinity
Grp. Co., 212 F.3d 180, n.6 (3d Cir. 2000), and we may thus affirm on any recordsupported grounds. See MacDonald v. CashCall, Inc., 883 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 2018).
By contrast, we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a recusal motion.
Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000).
Coulter squandered multiple opportunities to set forth a viable basis for the
District Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the District Court did
not err in dismissing the case.
The District Court correctly concluded that Coulter advanced no bona fide federal
cause of action, for purposes of securing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although
Coulter repeatedly invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that law applies only to state actors, see
Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165-66 (3d Cir. 2013), and none were named as
defendants.4 “[A] suit may sometimes be dismissed for want of jurisdiction where the
alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial
and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such claim is wholly
insubstantial and frivolous.” Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 350 (3d Cir. 2016)
(quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946)); see also Nowak v. Ironworkers Local
6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1189 (2d Cir. 1996). Insofar as Coulter attempted to assert

4

The District Court had communicated that principle of civil rights law to Coulter on
multiple prior occasions, as noted in the Magistrate Judge’s report.
3

Case: 17-3404

Document: 003112954011

Page: 4

Date Filed: 06/12/2018

a federal cause of action under § 1983, this is a case where the nature of the pleading
defect is, under Bell v. Hood, jurisdictional rather than merits-related.
The District Court also correctly concluded that Coulter failed to establish
diversity of citizenship, for purposes of securing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a),
though we reach that same conclusion by an alternate path. Coulter did not allege in her
complaint her state of citizenship.5 And the cover sheet for the complaint cryptically
claimed both that she resided at some unspecified address in Camden County, New
Jersey and that she was “temporarily living at an [unspecified] address in Sterling,
Virginia.”6 In addition, Coulter declined to directly respond to the aspect of the
Magistrate Judge’s show cause order related to diversity jurisdiction, and her objections

5

Instead, she alleged as follows:

“A.) Pro Se Plaintiff, JEAN COULTER, is a Resident of New Jersey, with
contact address:
Jean Coulter
P.O. Box 8094
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101-8084
412-616-9505 (Google Voice)”
As matter of jurisdictional pleading, that allegation is defective because it does not
state that Coulter is a “citizen” of New Jersey (or of any state). Cf. Lincoln Ben. Life Co.
v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 106 (3d Cir. 2015) (noting that the since-abrogated Form
7 in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provided samples of
jurisdictional pleading that permitted a plaintiff to “simply allege that a party is a ‘citizen
of [a certain state].’”). Also, there are no details from which to piece together Coulter’s
domicile and thus her state of citizenship; an assertion of ‘residence’ alone is insufficient.
See McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Tr., 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006); cf. Texas v.
Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 424 (1939) (“Residence in fact, coupled with the purpose to make
the place of residence one’s home, are the essential elements of domicile.”).
Perhaps for that reason Coulter concedes on appeal that the “Magistrate Judge was not
acting inappropriately to sua sponte question [her] domicile . . ..”
6

4

Case: 17-3404

Document: 003112954011

Page: 5

Date Filed: 06/12/2018

to the Magistrate Judge’s report similarly failed to provide sufficient facts to establish
citizenship in any state.7 We thus conclude as a matter of law that Coulter did not attempt
to meet her burden of production after questions concerning putative diversity
jurisdiction were raised by the Magistrate Judge. See Washington v. Hovensa LLC, 652
F.3d 340, 341, 345 (3d Cir. 2011).
Furthermore, it was not an abuse of discretion for the Magistrate Judge and the
District Court to deny Coulter’s requests for recusal, the premise for each—a litany of
acts of bias, criminality, and ethical breach—being plainly unfounded. Insofar as Coulter
continues to be dissatisfied with adverse rulings by the District Court in this and other
cases, we remind her that such dissatisfaction “is not a proper basis for recusal.” Coulter
v. Coulter, 715 F. App’x 158, 161 (3d Cir. 2017).
Coulter’s “motion for change of venue” is denied. Her various April 2, 2018
motions for recusal of judges on this Court are denied as unnecessary, as none of those
judges participated in the disposition of this appeal. Cf. In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353
F.3d 211, 224 (3d Cir. 2003) (following “the principle that ‘[d]iscretion is confided in the
district judge in the first instance to determine whether to disqualify himself . . . [because

7

In those objections, Coulter presented herself as a rolling stone, refusing to provide a
home address as she was “again considering re-locating,” while pontificating that she was
(1) “find[ing] herself often in the area of Washington, D.C.,” (2) being “pull[ed]” by her
“connections” to the “Northern part of New Jersey,” and (3) not discounting possible
citizenship in Illinois. On appeal, the only address Coulter provides is that of a private
mailbox in Butler, Pennsylvania. Generally speaking, Coulter is free to roam about as she
pleases and to keep her whereabouts private. But insofar as she seeks entry into federal
court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Coulter must in each case allege and
ultimately establish, inter alia, her “physical presence in a state with an intent to remain
there indefinitely.” Frett-Smith v. Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396, 401 (3d Cir. 2008).
5

Case: 17-3404

Document: 003112954011

Page: 6

Date Filed: 06/12/2018

the] judge presiding over a case is in the best position to appreciate the implications of
those matters alleged in a recusal motion.’”) (quoting In re Drexel Burnham Lambert
Inc., 861 F.2d 1307, 1312 (2d Cir. 1988)). Coulter’s motions for recusal of the judges on
this panel have been denied by separate orders.
Finally, although we agree with the District Court that recusal was unwarranted
and that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper, we must modify the
judgment below for a technical reason. The District Court dismissed Coulter’s case “with
prejudice,” but, as a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it should have been
“without prejudice.” See NJ Physicians, Inc. v. President of U.S., 653 F.3d 234, 241 n.8
(3d Cir. 2011); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 182 (3d Cir. 1999). We
modify the judgment accordingly. And, as modified, the judgment of the District Court
will be affirmed.

6