Manson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.

Filing 5

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 10/29/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02373-GPG
SETH C. MANSON,
(The above civil action number must appear on all future papers
sent to the court in this action. Failure to include this number
may result in a delay in the consideration of your claims.)
Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Seth C. Manson, has filed, pro se, a Complaint alleging libaility under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Plaintiff is not
represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an
advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated
below, Plaintiff will be ordered to file an Amended Complaint if he wishes to pursue his
claims in this action.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they must have a statutory basis for
their jurisdiction.” Morris v. City of Hobart, 39 F.3d 1105, 1111 (10th Cir. 1994). There are
two statutory bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The federal courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject
matter jurisdiction exists. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999).
Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, there is a presumption against its
existence. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974). A federal
district court may therefore raise the objection that it lacks jurisdiction on its own initiative
at any stage of the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by
suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter,
the court shall dismiss the action.”); see also McAlester v. United Air Lines, Inc., 851 F.2d
1249, 1252 (10th Cir. 1988) (“The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua
sponte by the court at any time during the course of the proceedings.”).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff does not allege a statutory basis to invoke the Court’s
federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although he claims in the body
of his complaint that Defendant has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, he
cites to state law. Moreover, the applicable federal law does not support his claim. His
action appears to sound in breach of contract.
Moreover, Plaintiff fails to plead facts to support jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. A plaintiff properly invokes § 1332 jurisdiction when he or she presents a claim
between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional amount,
currently $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S.
500, 513 (2006). Here, Plaintiff request damages in the amount of $27,202.15. Both the
requisite amount in controversy and the existence of diversity must be affirmatively
established by a preponderance of the evidence on the face of either the complaint or the
removal notice for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251
F.3d 1284, 1290 (10th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s claim does not appear to request damages of
$75,000.00. As a result, it appears “legally certain,” that the facts Plaintiffs alleged could

2

not support a demand for more than $75,000 in damages, which is required to meet the
statutory threshold for diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the allegations of the Complaint are
insufficient to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

Mr. Manson will be directed to file an Amended Complaint that affirmitively
establishes this Court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff file, within thirty days from the date of this Order, an
Amended Complaint that complies with the directives in this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall obtain the appropriate Court-approved
Complaint form, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails within the time allowed to file an
Amended Complaint that complies with this Order as directed, the action may be
dismissed without further notice.
DATED October 29, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

s/Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge

3