O'Neal v. Metro PCS

Filing 9

ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that O'Neal's claims against Metro PCS are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/15/2018.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FLOY L. O’NEAL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 17-12162

METRO PCS

SECTION I
ORDER & REASONS

Pro se plaintiff Floy O’Neal (“O’Neal”) alleges that an employee of defendant
Metro PCS broke her cell phone when she brought it into a Metro PCS store to
purchase telephone service.

Seeking damages, O’Neal filed a separate lawsuit

against Metro PCS, which was assigned to this Court. See O’Neal v. Metro PCS, No.
17-7901 (E.D. La. Aug. 15, 2017). In that case, the United States Magistrate Judge
granted O’Neal leave to proceed in forma pauperis but directed the Clerk of Court to
withhold issuance of summons in order to allow for review of O’Neal’s complaint to
ensure that it met the requirements of the in forma pauperis statute. The United
States Magistrate Judge found that O’Neal’s complaint did not satisfy the statute, as
it lacked merit on its face. As she observed,
[o]n the face of the complaint, there is no federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff, a Louisiana
resident, asserts tort claims against the defendant, who is
alleged to be an entity headquartered in Texas. The only
possible basis for jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In order
for the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332, the citizenship of the plaintiff must be
different from the citizenship of the defendant and the
amount in controversy must be in excess of $75,000. 28
U.S.C. § 1332. The amount in controversy is determined
by consideration of the complaint itself.

M[s]. O’Neal does not specify a dollar figure associated with
[her] purported damages. However, the only injury [s]he
alleges is the damage to [her] cellular phone. By no stretch
of the imagination could such damages exceed $75,000.
Thus, [her] Complaint fails to meet the amount in
controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and [s]he
cannot establish diversity jurisdiction even if the parties
are completely diverse. The Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over O’Neal’s claims.
Based on this analysis, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation, which this Court approved and adopted as its opinion.1
Consequently, O’Neal’s claims were dismissed without prejudice to her right to file
her complaint in state court.
Less than two months later, O’Neal filed the instant lawsuit.2 Her present
complaint, however, offers no new allegations. In fact, it is virtually identical to her
previous complaint. The Court, therefore, refuses to stray from its prior conclusion.
Federal question jurisdiction is not implicated in this case, and even assuming that
O’Neal and Metro PCS are completely diverse parties, the amount in controversy does
not exceed $75,000.3 Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed,
and O’Neal’s claims must be dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that O’Neal’s claims against Metro PCS are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

O’Neal did not file any objection to the report and recommendation.
O’Neal’s lawsuit was initially assigned to another section of the Court. However, in
light of its relation to O’Neal’s previous case, it was transferred to this Section.
3 Indeed, O’Neal filed a deficient “Motion for Judgment” in which she states that her
damages award could be “as much as ten thousand dollars.” R. Doc. No. 6, at 2.
1
2

2

New Orleans, Louisiana, March 15, 2018.

_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3