Whitmore v. Johnson et al
Filing
20
ORDER AND REASONS denying Motion(s) 17 , 18 and 19 . For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Whitmore's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/2/2018. (cg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CARL W. WHITMORE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 18-2788
TRAMANN JOHNSON, ET AL.
SECTION “R” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are plaintiff Carl Whitmore’s pro se motions to vacate
property, 1 to amend his complaint, 2 and for a final default judgment. 3
Because the Court finds that there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction,
it will not entertain the merits of plaintiff’s motions and instead dismisses
his claims.
I.
BACKGROUND4
Plaintiff Carl Whitmore filed a complaint pro se against Tramann
Johnson, the Plaquemines Parish Clerk of Court, and Janice Montague-
R. Doc. 17.
R. Doc. 18.
3
R. Doc. 19.
4
The pleadings before the Court in this case do not give a full accounting
of the relevant circumstances giving rise to plaintiff Carl Whitmore’s claims.
Nevertheless, the Court recounts the following facts as they have been
alleged, despite some remaining ambiguity.
1
2
Myles on March 9, 2018.5 He initially alleged that the successions of Ophelia
Whitmore Randall and Charles Randall Jr. were in error, and that any
transfer of property to defendant Tramann Johnson should be declared
void. 6 On April 5, 2018, after his initial complaint was marked deficient,
Whitmore filed an amended complaint. Whitmore alleges that Tramann
Johnson is not an heir to Charles Randall or Ophelia Whitmore Randall
because he is not a natural or adopted child. 7 Whitmore further alleges that
Charles Randall’s will is void because the signature line reads Charles
Randall, III, rather than Charles Randall, Jr.8 Whitmore therefore argues
that he should be recognized as the sole owner of a first lot and a threefourths owner of a second lot on Jake Lane in Sunshine, Louisiana. 9
Whitmore also seeks to have the Court declare him the sole beneficiary of
Charles Randall Jr. 10 Whitmore attaches court documents from a state
proceeding in Lorain, Ohio to the amended complaint, which do not appear
to relate to Whitmore’s claims in this action. 11
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
R. Doc. 1.
R. Doc. 1 at 1.
R. Doc. 3 at 2.
Id.
Id. at 2-3.
Id. at 3.
Id. at 4-6.
2
On July 31, 2018, Whitmore filed three motions. The first is a motion
to vacate property, in which Whitmore requests that the Court order
“Tramann Johnson [to] vacate the property at 2050 Jake Lane immediately
and never return.”12 Whitmore argues that Johnson violated a Louisiana
district court order by removing tools and other items from the property. 13
The second is a motion to amend his complaint, to which Whitmore attaches
a second amended complaint. 14 The second amended complaint repeats
Whitmore’s earlier allegations and also alleges that Tramann Johnson and
two individuals who are not named as defendants in the suit—George Grace
Jr. and Robert D. Hornstein—are liable for the destruction of a house on
2050 Jake Lane and for falsifying documents. 15 Whitmore has also attached
a copy of Charles Randall’s will to his motion to amend. 16 This document,
signed by Charles Randall, III, leaves the house and land at 2050 Jake Lane
to George and Carl Whitmore. 17 It leaves the remainder of his property to
Tramain Johnson, including all movables and a property at 219 Jake Lane.18
The third motion is a motion for default judgment, in which Whitmore seeks
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
R. Doc. 17-1 at 1.
Id.
See R. Doc. 18-1.
Id. at 5-6.
Id. at 8.
Id.
Id.
3
judgment against defendants Tramann Johnson and the Plaquemines Parish
Clerk of Court for failure to respond to his complaint. 19 Defendants have not
responded to any of the motions.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
If a federal court is convinced that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over a case, it has “a duty to raise the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction sua
sponte.” American Heritage Life Inc. Co. v. Lang, 321 F.3d 533, 537 (5th
Cir. 2003) (quoting H & D Tire & Automotive–Hardware, Inc. v. Pitney
Bowes, Inc., 27 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2000). A federal court may not
entertain a case unless authorized to do so by the Constitution and
legislation. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996).
Two possibilities for jurisdiction exist: federal question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule
which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question
is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”
Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 12 (2003) (citing Caterpillar
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)); see also Vaden v. Discover Bank,
19
R. Doc. 19.
4
556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (explaining that “a suit ‘arises under’ federal law ‘only
when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is
based upon [federal law]’”). Diversity jurisdiction exists only when there is
complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The amount
in controversy must either be facially apparent or established by a
preponderance of the evidence in the pleadings. Felton v. Greyhound Lines,
Inc., 324 F.3d 771, 773 (5th Cir. 2003). The party seeking to invoke federal
diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proving both diversity of
citizenship and the amount in controversy. See Garcia v. Koch Oil of Tex.
Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638 (5th Cir. 2003).
In addition, an exception to the standard diversity rules exist for
probate matters and the administration of an estate. Federal courts have no
jurisdiction in these areas. Akin v. La. Nat’l Bank of Baton Rouge, 322 F.2d
749, 751 (5th Cir. 1963). But “federal courts of equity have jurisdiction to
entertain suits in favor of creditors, legatees and heirs . . . so long as the
federal court does not interfere with the probate proceedings.” Markham v.
Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946) (internal quotation marks omitted). A
federal court action interferes with probate proceedings when it
“challenge[s] the validity of [the] probate proceeding, . . . seek[s] to recover
5
property from [the] estate,” or when it requires the federal court to “assume
control of estate property.” Breaux v. Dilsaver, 254 F.3d 533, 537 (5th Cir.
2001). The Fifth Circuit has specifically held that federal courts do not have
jurisdiction over an action that attacks “the validity of the will itself.”
Blakeney v. Blakeney, 664 F.2d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 1981).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff does not allege a basis for jurisdiction in his complaint.
Nevertheless, because Whitmore is a pro se litigant, the Court construes his
complaint liberally. See Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir.
1994). But even construing Whitmore’s complaint liberally, none of the
claims he asserts appear to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States as required for jurisdiction under § 1331.
Diversity
jurisdiction under § 1332 also does not exist. Whitmore makes no assertions
as to the citizenship of the parties in his pleadings, and the Court cannot
definitively discern the parties’ citizenships from the record. Whitmore also
has not alleged that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and is it not
facially apparent from his complaint that his injuries exceed this amount.
See Felton, 324 F.3d at 773. Because Whitmore has not met the citizenship
6
or amount in controversy requirements, federal jurisdiction does not exist
under § 1332.
This case also falls within the probate exception to federal jurisdiction,
because judgment in this action would interfere with a state judgment of
possession in a succession proceeding for Randall’s estate. Whitmore’s
allegation that Randall’s will is fraudulent forms the basis for a majority of
his claims against Johnson. The Fifth Circuit has explicitly held that a federal
court adjudicating this type of challenge to a will interferes with probate
proceedings. Blakeney, 664 F.2d at 434. In addition, Whitmore alleges that
a Louisiana judge has ordered that nothing be removed from the property at
2050 Jake Lane. 20 To the extent that this allegation is true, and to the extent
that a Louisiana court has already determined ownership of the properties in
question during a succession proceeding, this Court has no authority to
review those decisions.21 United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th
Cir. 1994) (“The Rooker/Feldman doctrine holds that federal district courts
R. Doc. 17-1 at 1.
Whitmore has made additional allegations against Janice MontagueMyles in briefings that are not properly before the Court. Should Whitmore
file an amended complaint that includes such allegations, the Court will
consider whether these claims are outside of the jurisdictional exclusion on
probate proceedings and whether they meet the requirements for diversity
jurisdiction.
7
20
21
lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state judgments.”). For
these reasons, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate Whitmore’s claims.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Whitmore’s action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2nd
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of November, 2018.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?