Taylor v. Wardworth et al

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Marshall Taylor, that this case be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Objections to R&R due by 8/11/2009. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 7/29/2009. (dmn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION M A R S H A L L TAYLOR, P l a in tif f , v. A L F O R D WARDWORTH, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C I V I L ACTION NO. 2:09cv581-MEF (WO) R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n June 22, 2009, pro se plaintiff Marshall Taylor filed this action against defendants A lf o rd Wardworth, Charlotte Reed, Bill Pearson, Bobby Carter, Carol's Radiator, and the P ra ttv ille Police Department. Rather than interpret what the plaintiff states in his complaint, th e court will quote it. G R O U N D ONE: m o n e y $1000.00. P r a t tv i ll e City Clerk haven't gave me back my bond S T A T E BRIEFLY THE FACTS WHICH SUPPORT THIS GROUND. $ 2 0 0 .0 0 /$ 1 0 0 0 .0 0 for a trailer door. The court orders that comes from your c o u rt have not been settled yet, and then still they are doing the same identical th in g s ; harassing me, and pulling guns threating (sic) my life, and threating (sic ) me over my home, and property this is Alford Wardworth, Charlotte R e e d ; what can have these people harrassing me like this, and pulling guns on m e . . . they threatend (sic) to take my home and land for no reason I want so n b o d y (sic) to put a warrant for his arrest and Charolette Reed Alford W a r d s w o r th about them spirits. I want them to stop with them spirits. S T A T E BRIEFLY EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT THE COURT TO DO F O R YOU. . . . Carol's to pay or fix my truck back Alford Wardworth C h a rlo tte Reed to pay me my bond money and fix my door or pay me for it and s to p harrassing me about my home and Bill Pearson to get child support money stra ig h ten d (sic) out, he was deducting out of my pay check Bobby Carter to p a y up . . . (C o m p l. at 2 - 3). B e c au s e federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, it is a basic premise of federal c o u rt practice that the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action b e f o re it can act. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); B u r n s v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11 th Cir. 1994). Thus, federal courts only h a v e the power to hear cases as authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United S ta te s , see Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, and are required to inquire into their jurisdiction at th e earliest possible point in the proceeding. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 4 0 5 , 410 (11 th Cir. 1999). In addition, FED R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) requires that "[w]herever it ap p ea rs . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court shall dismiss the action." This court o p e ra te s under an independent obligation to examine its own jurisdiction continues at each stag e of the proceedings, even if no party raises the jurisdictional issues and both parties are p re p a re d to concede it. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990). "It is axiomatic th a t a district court may inquire into the basis of its subject matter jurisdiction at any stage o f the proceedings." See 13 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure 3 5 2 2 (1975). A review of the complaint demonstrates that the plaintiff does not assert any federal c la im . Thus, there is no basis under 28 U.S.C. 1331 for this court having federal question ju ris d ic tio n over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. 1331. A federal district court may exercise s u b je c t matter jurisdiction over a civil action in which only state law claims are alleged if the c iv il action arises under the federal court's diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). 2 T h e diversity state confers jurisdiction on the federal courts in civil actions "between citizens o f different states," in which the jurisdictional amount is met. See Id. To satisfy diversity, n o t only must a plaintiff be a citizen of a state other than the state of which one defendant is a citizen, but also, under the rule of "complete diversity," no plaintiff may share the same s ta te citizenship with any defendant. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (18 0 6 ). The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Alabama as are s e v e ra l of the defendants; therefore, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U .S .C . 1332. See 28 U.S.C. 1332. In short, this court lacks jurisdiction over all of the p la in tif f 's claims and this case is due to be dismissed. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to show cause why this case should not be d is m is s e d for want of jurisdiction. In his response, the plaintiff objects to the dismissal of th is case as well as "not bing able to live in my home . . . [and] Charolette Reed and Alfred W a d s w o rth for harassing me. I do not want all of these cases dismissed, dropped or closed." (D o c. # 5). Unfortunately, the plaintiff presents no facts that would suggest that this court h a s jurisdiction over his claims. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be d is m is s e d with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties shall file any objections to the this Recommendation on o r before August 11, 2009. A party must specifically identify the findings in the R e c o m m e n d a tio n to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive or general objections will n o t be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's proposed 3 f in d in g s and recommendations shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on a p p e al factual findings accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of p la in error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See S te in v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en banc). D o n e this 29 th day of July 2009. /s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?