Hooks v. Reese et al

Filing 3

ORDER giving Ms. Hooks 30 days from the date of this Order to amend her Complaint. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 3/27/2024. (ldb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
SHAYLA HOOKS,
d/b/a Hooks Construction, LLC
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:24-cv-00252-LPR

WARD REESE, Code Enforcement;
MARY BETH MILLER, Finance Manager

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff Shayla Hooks paid the filing fee and initiated this pro se lawsuit on March 18,
2024.1 Summonses were not issued.2 Ms. Hooks sues Ward Reese and Mary Beth Miller alleging
they “lied on paper and it affected [her] winning/losing a contract of $274,000.”3 The nature of
the contract is unknown. The Complaint is entirely conclusory. It alleges no specific facts. Most
importantly for present purposes, it does not allege sufficient facts to plausibly suggest that the
Court has jurisdiction over the case.
“In every federal case, the threshold requirement is jurisdiction because federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction.”4 If the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a case, then the
complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.5 Generally speaking, the Court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction over a case must be based on either federal question jurisdiction or diversity

1

Compl. (Doc. 1).

2

Id.

3

Id. at 4.

4

Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP v. Lewis, 40 F.4th 830, 838 (8th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).

5

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).

jurisdiction.6 This is such an important prerequisite to the exercise of a federal court’s power that
the Court is required to examine the issue sua sponte if it has concerns.7
Diversity jurisdiction exists if the dispute is between “citizens of different states” and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.8 Although Ms. Hooks seeks a sum that meets the
amount-in-controversy requirement ($275,000), all of the parties appear to be Arkansans. So the
Court does not have diversity jurisdiction.
Federal question jurisdiction exists if the case arises “under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.”9 Ms. Hooks does not rely on, or cite to, any federal law in her
Complaint. Instead, Ms. Hooks alleges that the Defendants interfered with her ability to secure a
contract – a claim that seemingly arises under Arkansas (not federal) law. Based on the allegations
in the Complaint as it is currently pled, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action.
Ms. Hooks notes that Mr. Reese works with “code enforcement” and that Ms. Miller is a
“finance manager.”10 So, it is possible that Ms. Hooks may be attempting to assert a claim pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court just doesn’t have enough information to know if that is what
Ms. Hooks is trying to do. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, the complaint must allege
sufficient facts (the who, what, when, where, and how) to plausibly suggest that a person acting
under the color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right or a federally protected
statutory right.11 The plaintiff’s factual allegations must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief

6

Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) & 1332 (diversity).

7

Thigulla v. Jaddou, 94 F.4th 770, 773 (8th Cir. 2024).

8

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

9

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

10

Compl. (Doc. 1) at 2.

11

Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49–50 (1999). If Ms. Hooks intends to assert one or more § 1983

2

above the speculative level . . . .”12 Bare allegations void of factual enhancement are insufficient
to state a claim for relief under § 1983.13
Ms. Hooks will be given thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to amend her
complaint. To avoid dismissal, Ms. Hooks’s amended complaint must give both the Court and the
opposing parties fair notice of what the claim is and how exactly the Defendants were involved.
Ms. Hooks must name each Defendant, identify specifically how that Defendant violated her
rights, and provide a far fuller description of the events supporting her claims – the who, what,
when, where, and how discussed above.14 Most importantly, the amended complaint needs to show
how the Court has jurisdiction over this case.
Failure to timely amend her complaint will result in the dismissal of this lawsuit for lack
of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March 2024.
_______________________________
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

claims, she should be aware that “[l]iability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the
deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990). “Because vicarious liability is
inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s
own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration
in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009)).
12

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007).

13

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

14

Id.

3