Stewart Jr. v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Dismissing 1 Complaint. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 11/19/2020. (c/m 11/19/2020 bas, Deputy Clerk) .
Case 1:20-cv-03328-GLR Document 4 Filed 11/19/20 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MAURICE BERNARD STEWART, JR.,
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No. GLR-20-3328
On November 17, 2020, the Court received state inmate Maurice Bernard Stewart,
Jr.’s Complaint against the Boy Scouts of America together with a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). In his Complaint, Stewart alleges that in 1978,
while a member of the cub scouts, he was assaulted by a cub scout leader in West
Baltimore. (Compl. at 2, ECF No. 1). Stewart indicates that the case is filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 4, 6). For the reasons
that follow, Stewart’s Motion will be granted and the case will be dismissed.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v.
Hanna, 750 F.3d 427, 432 (4th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted) (citing Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Thus, a federal district court
may only adjudicate a case if it possesses the “power authorized by Constitution and
statute.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (internal
quotation marks omitted). As the Fourth Circuit stated in Strawn v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
530 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2008), if a party seeks to proceed in federal court, he “must allege
Case 1:20-cv-03328-GLR Document 4 Filed 11/19/20 Page 2 of 5
and, when challenged, must demonstrate the federal court’s [subject matter] jurisdiction
over the matter.” Id. at 296. Indeed, “if Congress has not empowered the federal judiciary
to hear a matter, then the case must be dismissed.” Hanna, 750 F.3d at 432. Put another
way, “[a] court is to presume . . . that a case lies outside its limited juris diction unless and
until jurisdiction has been shown to be proper.” United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 274
(4th Cir. 2008) (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377). Even when no party challenges subject
matter jurisdiction, a federal court has “an independent obligation to determine whether
subject-matter jurisdiction exists.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010).
Congress has conferred jurisdiction on the federal courts in several ways. First, to
provide a federal forum for plaintiffs who seek to vindicate federal rights, Congress has
conferred on the district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Exxon Mobil, 545 U.S. at 552; 28
U.S.C. § 1331; see also U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2 (“The Judicial Power shall extend to all
Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United Sta tes,
and Treaties made . . .”). This is called federal question jurisdiction.
In addition, “Congress . . . has granted district courts original jurisdiction in civil
actions between citizens of different States, between U.S. citizens and foreign citizens, or
by foreign states against U.S. citizens,” so long as the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. Exxon Mobil, 545 U.S. at 552; see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, it is crystal clear
that diversity jurisdiction “requires complete diversity among parties, meaning that the
citizenship of every plaintiff must be different from the citizenship of every defendant.”
Case 1:20-cv-03328-GLR Document 4 Filed 11/19/20 Page 3 of 5
Cent. W. Va. Energy Co., Inc. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101, 103 (4th Cir.
2011) (emphasis added); see also Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806).
Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), district courts are granted “supplemental
jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the
courts’] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under
Article III of the United States Constitution.”
The “burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction is on . . . the party asserting
jurisdiction.” Robb Evans & Assocs., LLC v. Holibaugh, 609 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir.
2010); accord Hertz, 599 U.S. at 95; McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 408 (4th Cir.
2010). Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, the facts showing the existence of subject
matter jurisdiction “must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.” Pinkley, Inc. v. City
of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing McNutt v. Gen’l Motors Acceptance
Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936)).
Because Stewart is self-represented, the Court has afforded the Complaint liberal
construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nevertheless, the alleged
conduct does not amount to a federal claim. While Plaintiff asserts that the Complaint is
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil rights action brought under that statute must
be directed to unlawful conduct under color of law. See Owens v. Balt. City State’s
Attorney Office, 767 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2014). Section 1983 provides, in part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
Case 1:20-cv-03328-GLR Document 4 Filed 11/19/20 Page 4 of 5
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress. . . .
Section 1983 “‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method
for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271
(1994) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)). Essential to sustaining
an action under § 1983 are the presence of two elements. Specifically, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that: (1) he suffered a deprivation of “rights, privileges or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws” of the United States; and (2) the act or omission causing the
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988). Here, Stewart has not provided any facts giving rise to an inference that the
Boy Scouts of America acted under color of law when the alleged conduct occurred.
Therefore, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this matter.
At best, the Complaint asserts state tort claims that arise under Maryland law. A
federal district court may have jurisdiction over claims arising under state law where the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between
citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The statute “requires complete
diversity among parties, meaning that the citizenship of every plaintiff must be different
from the citizenship of every defendant.” Cent. W. Va. Energy, 636 F.3d at 103 (citing
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). Stewart does not allege the citizenship
of Defendant Boy Scouts of America or the individuals named in the Complaint; thus, it is
unclear from the face of the Complaint whether diversity jurisdiction exists in this case. As
Case 1:20-cv-03328-GLR Document 4 Filed 11/19/20 Page 5 of 5
such, Stewart has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction over
the matter. Robb Evans, 609 F.3d at 362.
Accordingly, it is this 19th day of November, 2020, by the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that:
1. Stewart’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;
2. The Complaint is DISMISSED;
3. The Clerk shall PROVIDE a copy of this Order to Stewart at his address of
4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge
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?