Wilson v. Stevenson

Filing 37

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Jayna Stevensons Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 28 ) is GRANTED to the extent defendant seeks dismissal of this case due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 10/23/18. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
MARC WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAYNA STEVENSON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17CV4 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of defendant Jayna Stevenson to dismiss
the complaint filed by plaintiff Marc Wilson, a Missouri state prisoner who is proceeding herein
pro se and in forma pauperis. For the reasons explained below, the motion will be granted, and
this case will be dismissed, without prejudice, due to the lack of jurisdiction.
Background
The underlying facts and procedural history are well known to the parties, and are fully
set forth in this Court’s September 13, 2018 Order. However, following is a brief recitation.
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant, a former girlfriend, alleging she engaged in
wrongdoing after he gave her power of attorney over his financial affairs and assets. Plaintiff
asserted that this Court’s jurisdiction was based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the parties were
completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. He also stated, without
explanation, that this Court had original jurisdiction over his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1343. However, he alleged no civil rights violations.
Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that plaintiff
could not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In support,

plaintiff filed her sworn affidavit accompanied by numerous exhibits directly refuting plaintiff’s
damages claims. Plaintiff’s affidavit and exhibits were fully discussed in this Court’s September
13, 2018 Order, and that discussion will not be reproduced here. After the motion to dismiss was
filed, plaintiff filed a response to an earlier-filed Disclosure of Organizational Interests
Certificate that bore the caption of a different case, arguing that defendant was attempting to
mislead and distract the Court. However, as noted in this Court’s September 13, 2018 Order, it
appeared the Certificate had been filed in this case due to a mere clerical error. Plaintiff filed
nothing specifically directed to defendant’s motion to dismiss, nor did he attempt to offer any
evidence tending to establish his alleged damages.
On September 13, 2018, this Court entered an Order directing plaintiff to show, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy alleged in the complaint was
greater than $75,000, for purposes of determining the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court noted that if plaintiff believed there was some other basis for this Court’s jurisdiction,
he should so assert. The Court specifically cautioned that plaintiff’s failure to timely comply
with the Order would result in the dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
without further notice. The Court held defendant’s motion to dismiss in abeyance to allow
plaintiff time to respond. Plaintiff’s response was due to the Court no later than October 15,
2018. However, as of the date of this Order, plaintiff has neither responded to the Court, nor
sought additional time to do so.
Discussion
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Their power to adjudicate is
limited to that granted by Congress and statute. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.,
545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377

2

(1994). Congress has granted district courts original jurisdiction in civil actions between citizens
of different states, when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The
proponent of diversity jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009).
“[A] complaint that alleges the jurisdictional amount in good faith will suffice to confer
jurisdiction, but the complaint will be dismissed if it ‘appear[s] to a legal certainty that the claim
is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.’ ” Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 388 (8th Cir.
1994) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938)). If the
defendant challenges the plaintiff’s allegations of the amount in controversy, then the plaintiff
must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. McNutt v. General Motors
Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 188 (1936); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Universal Crop Protection
Alliance, LLC, 620 F.3d 926, 931 (8th Cir. 2010).
In the case at bar, plaintiff offered his own allegations in an attempt to meet his burden of
establishing his claim of diversity jurisdiction, and defendant challenged plaintiff’s allegations of
the amount in controversy. When plaintiff offered nothing in response, the Court ordered him to
show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy he alleged was greater
than the jurisdictional amount, or to assert some other basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Again,
plaintiff offered no response. After the defendant challenged plaintiff’s statement of diversity
jurisdiction, it was up to plaintiff to show by a preponderance of evidence that such jurisdiction
exists. See id. He failed to do so. He also failed to demonstrate any other basis for this Court’s
jurisdiction, and no such basis is apparent. Therefore, the Court has no choice but to conclude it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint, and also that there is no other basis
for jurisdiction. The Court will therefore dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction.

3

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Jayna Stevenson’s Motion to Dismiss
(Docket No. 28) is GRANTED to the extent defendant seeks dismissal of this case due to lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice due to
lack of jurisdiction. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 23rd day of October, 2018

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4