Walker v. Walker et al

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing 1 Complaint and Granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Cametrice P. Walker (Objections to R&R due by 12/29/2017.) Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 12/15/17. (jlm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
CAMETRICE P. WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARY F. WALKER, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV417-239

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Cametrice Walker has filed this case against several
defendants, apparently relatives of her husband, who she contends stole
two million dollars from her.1 See doc. 1 at 22. Nevertheless, her case
must be dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over her claims. She also seeks to pursue her case in forma pauperis.
Doc. 2. For jurisdictional purposes only, her request is GRANTED. Id.
1

Given the scattered presentation of the factual allegations, it is impossible to
discern exactly what wrongful conduct she is alleging. The allegation that the funds
were “stolen” is conclusory, at best. Thus, it seems unlikely that her Complaint
states a federal claim upon which relief can be granted. However, those references
suggest a state-law conversion claim. That suggestion might support giving Walker
leave to amend her allegations where the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
the case. Even supposing the assertion of such a claim, however, Walker’s Complaint
fails to sufficiently allege any basis for such jurisdiction, as discussed below.
Accordingly, there is no need to delve further into the factual basis, if any, of such a
claim.

The Court has an obligation to determine “whether it has subject
matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings.”
Nalls v. Country Wide Home Servs., LLC, 279 F. App’x 824, 825 (11th Cir.
2008) (quotes and cite omitted). Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction. It is presumed that a case lies outside that jurisdiction, and
the party asserting jurisdiction (here, the plaintiff) bears the burden of
overcoming that presumption. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). “In a given case, a
federal district court must have at least one of three types of subject
matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant;
(2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or
(3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).”

Baltin v.

Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997) (cites
omitted).
In the first instance, a plaintiff’s Complaint must establish the
grounds for a federal court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Butler v. Morgan, 562
F. App’x 832, 834 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that court may dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction “based on . . . the complaint alone,” among
other bases).

“Federal question jurisdiction exists only when the

‘well-pleaded complaint standing alone establishes either that federal law
creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily
depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’” Id. at
472 (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of the State of Cal. V. Constr. Laborers
Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). “Diversity jurisdiction
requires complete diversity; every plaintiff must be diverse from every
defendant.” Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287
(11th Cir. 1998).
Walker alleges both that her claims present a federal question and
that there is diversity of citizenship between her and the defendants.
Doc. 1 at 5. She states that her claim presents a federal question under
the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the Third
Amendment (which limits the quartering of soldiers in private homes),
“United States antitrust law[,] basic human rights from abuse[, and] the
right to privacy.”

Doc. 1 at 5.

Despite her references to the

Constitution and federal law, and even liberally construed, her Complaint
suggests only a state-law conversion claim. See, e.g, O.C.G.A. § 51-10-1
(recognizing a cause of action for deprivation of possession of personal
property). She has also failed to allege complete diversity because she

alleges that one of the defendants, like her, is a Georgia resident. See
doc. 1 at 6-7 (alleging defendant Dempsey Walker, Sr. resides in Pooler,
Georgia).
Since Walker has not borne her burden of establishing any basis for
this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over her claims, her Complaint
should be DISMISSED.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3 (“If the court

determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.”). Although a pro se plaintiff should generally
be afforded the opportunity to amend her complaint before dismissal, the
Court discerns no basis for a viable amendment, given the Complaint’s
allegations.2 See Langlois v. Traveler’s Ins. Co., 401 F. App’x 425, 426-27
(11th Cir. 2010). Any amendment, therefore, would be futile. See id. at
426 (quoting Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001))
(opportunity to amend is not necessary “‘where amendment would be
futile.’”).
This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district
judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
this Court’s Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may
2

Despite the lack of any apparent basis for viable amendment, Walker’s opportunity
to object to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, see infra.
affords her an opportunity to resuscitate her case.

file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all
parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendations.”

Any requests for additional

time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by
the assigned district judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The
district

judge

will

review

the

magistrate

judge’s

findings

and

recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are
advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648
F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Michell v. United States., 612 F. App’x
542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 15th day of
December, 2017.