Lekoba v. Oboa-Franck

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/28/2016. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 7/28/16)

FILED
U.S. DIS TRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES IHSTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Uivision
IDlb JUL28 P 3: 23

CLfRK'$ OFF1C'
AI GREU-li?:rf

*
.IEANNOT LEKOBA,

*
Plaintiff,

*
Case No.: G.JB-16-2627

v.
r.

FRANCIA ANUREAS OBOA-FRANCK,

*
Defendant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANUUM OPINION
On July 19. 2016. the Clerk received for liling the above-captioned

Complaintli'om

pro

se Plaintiff Jeannot Lekoba. a resident of College Park. i'vlaryland. Lekoba sues Francia-Andreas
Oboa-Franck.

a resident of Frederick. Maryland. seeking this Court'sjurisdiction

U.S.c. ~ 1332.' See ECF No. I. The complaint
in{"rllla pauperis. ECF NO.2. Lekoba's
In the Complaint.

is accompanied

pursuant to 28

by a motion for leave to proceed

indigency motion shall be granted.

Lekoba states the f(ll1owing:

"'Miss Francias Andreas Oboa is accusing me of stealing her credit card and us[ ing I it
without her permission. Miss Francias handed me her credit card and approved all
transaetion[s] made. She was fully aware and I have pictures and text messages
mentioning that she gave me her card. she even text me pictures of her ID and
driver's license for same transaction. Because we arc no longer in the relationship she
called the bank and told them that I stole her card. The reason \dlY shc handed her
card to me it was I was going to visit my child and take carc ofsomc Iltmily issues
'an the attached civil cover shcet. LCKobachecKcd olT divcrsity as thc jurisdictional basis 1<11' hcr suit.
ECI' No. I-I. and indicates in the Complaint that Defendant is a citizen ofthc Republic of Congo. ECI'
No. I at 6. In addition. on the civil cover sheet. she cheCKedolTthe '"False Claims Act". section under
nature

of suit.

such as child custody. Thc amount according to her is about $2.000. I do owe her
money. but' did not steal Ii'om her. To call the bank lie to them that took her phonc
sent thc pictures to myself etc. 'just want justice. Because of these accllsation[ s I I
have lost the little job I was doing as helper in a moving company. My Boss heard
about it and told me not to come back.
ECF No. I at 7. The relief section of the form complaint
Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915(e)(2).
shall dismiss

monetary

whcn injimna

[al case at any timc if the court dctcrmincs

frivolous or malicious:

IWllperis status is grantcd ... thc court
that ... thc action or appcal-(i)

is

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted: or (iii) seeks

relief against a defendant

courts to independently

has bccn Icli blank.

who is immune from such relief."' The statute permits district

assess the merits of injimna

pallperis

complaints.

that have no arguable basis in law or facL" See Nasilll \'. lVanlen.64

and ..to exclude suits

F.3d 951. 954 (4th Cir.

1995); see alsll Cn}\\'le)' CII/lel)' CII. \'. Uni/ed Stales, 849 F.2d 273. 277 (7th Cir. 1988) (federal
district judge has authority to dismiss a frivolous suit on his own initiative).
authority

ditTerentiates

injimna

pallperis

This screening

suits II'OIn ordinary civil suits. Nasilll. 64 F.3d at 953-

54: see alslI Eriline CII, S.A. \'. .I111111slln.
440 FJd 648. 656 (4th Cir. 20(6). Although
refers to filings by prisoners,
prisoner

complaints

court's

courts have performed

28 U.S.c. ~ 1915(e)(2)(B)

FlIgle \'. Blake, 227 Fed. App'x

pre-service

1915(e)(2)(B»:
May 18.2016)

a preliminary

pursuant to that statute. See ,l/ichall \'. CharleS/lin

727 (4th Cir. 2006) (applying
complaint):

numerous

dismissal

Sil'l1ik \'.

ofnon-prisoner's

u.s. .Il1slice

542 (8th Cir. July 10.2(07)

Dep'l. No, PWG-16-956.

(noting that 28 U,S,c. ~ 1915(e) authorizes

2

screening of non-

en/)' .. S,c.. 434 F.3d 725.

to preliminary

~ 1983 complaint

~ 1915

screen a non-prisoner
(affirming

district

pursuant to 28 U,S.c. ~
2016 WI. 2930908,

dismissal

of complaints

at *1 (D, Md,
filed injimna

pauperis).

Under

* 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

the court must dismiss a plaintilrs complaint ifit Itlils to state

a elaim on which relief may bc granted. Although a pro se plaintilrs

plcadings arc liberally

construed. the complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient ..to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level" and that "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its Itlce:' Bell A/I.
Corp. v. TlI'omhly. 550 U.S. 544. 555. 570. 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). This "plausibility standard

. requires [plaintiff1 to demonstrate more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully:' Francis 1'._Giacomelli. 588 F.3d 186. 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Indeed. a plaintilTmust articulate facts that. when accepted as true.
demonstrate he has stated a elaim entitling him to relief. Id.
A court may consider subject matter jurisdiction as part of its initial review of the
complaint. See LO\'el'l1 ". E{!lmrd.,'. 190 F.3d 648. 654 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that

"I djetennining

the question of subject matter jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is olien the most eflicient
procedure"). 11'subject matter jurisdiction is lacking in an action before a court. the case must be
dismissed. See Fcd. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("Ifthc court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction. the court must dismiss the action:'). If necessary. the
to consider its subject matter jurisdiction sua .\]Jonle. See .Joseph
Cir. 2006): see also BrickmJOd Con/rac/ors.
(4th Cir. 2004) ("[Q]uestions ofsubject-mattcr

Inc.

1'.

D%ne/

1'.

C01ll1

has an obligation

I.em'ill. 465 F.3d 87. 89 (2d

Engineering

Inc .. 369 FJd 385. 390

jurisdiction may be raised at any point during the

proceedings and may (or. more precisely. must) bc raised sua .\]Jol1/e by thc court.").
District courts have original jurisdiction pursuant to 28

3

U.s.c.

* 1331 "of all ci\il

actions

arising under the Constitution.
Under the "well-pleaded
is presented

laws. or treaties of the United States'" See 28 U.s.c.

complaint

rule:'

on the face of Plaintiffs

lederaljurisdiction

~ 1331.

exists only when a federal question

properly pleaded complaint.

See Cli/erpillllr

Illc. \'.

lVillilill/s. 482 U.S. 386. 392. 107 S. Ct. 2425 (1987). The Fourth Circuit has ohselwd
"[tJhere is no 'single. precise definition'
law:'

that

of what it means fiJI' an action to 'arise under' federal

Vaizoll Md. l/7c. \'. Glohlll N~PS. IlIc .. 377 F.3d 355. 362 (4th Cir. 2(04) (quoting .\Ierrell

Dolt' Pharll/. l/7c. \'. TholllpSOII. 478 U.S. 804. 808. 106 S. Ct. 3229 (1986»). Indeed:
The Supreme Court has recognized ~ 1331 jurisdiction in a variety of cases. such as
(I) when a federal right or immunity fOll11San essential element of the plaintiffs
claim; (2) when a plaintiffs
right to relief depends upon the construction
or
application of federal law. and the tederal nature of the claim rests upon a reasonahle
foundation: (3) when federal law creates the cause of action: and (4) when the
plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depcnds on resolution ofa substantial question of
lederal law.

!d. (internal citations and quotations

omitted).

Lekoba claims that he has been "wrongly"
of the False Claims Act ("ITA").
for Iraud committed

31 U.S.c.

accused of stealing a credit card. in violation

~ 3729 e/ seq. The FCA provides a cause of action

against the United States. See 1I1Irriso/7 \'. Weslillgllllllse SlIl'lIlIIwh Ril'a

Co .. 176 F,3d 776. 784 (4th Cir. 1999). Thus, Lekoha j~lils to assert a eause of action under the
FCA sufficient

to conteI' lederal question jurisdiction

The claim appears grounded

in state law. A federal district court does not sit to review

every claim related to alleged fraudulent
Instead. it only has authority
citizenship

upon this court.

or tortious eonduet involving

non-federal

to review such state-law claims where there is dhwsity

between the parties, Pursuant to 28 U,S.c.

4

~ 1332. di\'ersity jurisdiction

parties,
of
exists \\hen

the parties arc citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A
party's citizenship is based upon her state of domicile. See Nell" Ril-er Lilli/her

CO,

I'.

(iraff:

889

F.2d 1084 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that, for diversity purposes, "citizenship is the cquivalent of
domicile"). When a party seeks to invoke diversity jurisdiction under

* 1332. he or she hears the

burden of demonstrating that the grounds for diversity exist and that diversity is complete. See
Kimble

1".

Rajpal, 566 F. App'x 261. 263 (4th Cir. 2014).

According to the Complaint, both parties reside in Maryland. ECF No. I at 3. Therefore.
there is no diversity of citizenship hetween them and this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs claims. Moreover, Lekoha has tailed to show that ..the matter in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs:' 28 U.S.c.

* 1332. The cause of action arises out of a

dispute involving the alleged misuse ofa credit card. Lekoha's Complaint does not seek any
particular relief and lails to allege filcts specific to satisfy the amount in controversy required by
28 U.S.c.

* 1332. The case must he dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. A separate Order follows.

Dated: July

t-~

4;P--

,2016

GEORGE J. IIAZEL
United States District Judge

5