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)

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