Young v. Knox(MAG+)

Filing 4

ORDER directing Plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Show Cause Response due by 5/30/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 5/16/2014. Copy mailed CMRRR to plaintiff.(dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
CLEOPHUS YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.
EUGENE KNOX,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv346-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
On May 12, 2014, pro se plaintiff Cleophus Young filed this action against defendant
Eugene Knox. According to Young, Knox committed perjury to fraudulently collect life
insurance benefits.
Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, it is a basic premise of federal
court practice that the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
before it can act. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994);
Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). Thus, federal courts only
have the power to hear cases as authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United
States, see Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, and are required to inquire into their jurisdiction at
the earliest possible point in the proceeding. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d
405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). In addition, FED R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) requires that “[w]herever it
appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court shall dismiss the action.” This court
operates under an independent obligation to examine its own jurisdiction continues at each
stage of the proceedings, even if no party raises the jurisdictional issues and both parties are

prepared to concede it. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990). “It is axiomatic
that a district court may inquire into the basis of its subject matter jurisdiction at any stage
of the proceedings.” See 13 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure
3522 (1975).
It does not appear from a review of the complaint that the plaintiff presents a federal
question to invoke this court’s federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although
Young attempts to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, no substantive rights are created
by Section 1983. It merely provides a remedy for deprivations of federal rights created
elsewhere. Wideman v. Shallowford Community Hospital, Inc., 826 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir.
1987). To be successful on § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that he suffered a
deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States and that the act or omission causing the deprivation was committed by a person
acting under color of state law. Id. It does not appear that defendant Knox is a person
“acting under color of state law.”
In addition, it appears that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and all
the parties are from Alabama.

Consequently, there does not appear to be diversity

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Consequently, on the face of the complaint, it does not
appear that this court has jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that on or before May 30, 2014, the plaintiff shall show cause why this
case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff is advised
that if he fails to respond to respond to this order with specificity, the court will treat
his failure to respond as an abandonment of the claims set forth in his complaint. The

plaintiff is further cautioned that if he fails to file a response in accordance with the
directives of this order, the court will recommend that this case be dismissed.
Done this 16th day of May, 2014.

/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE