Bibbs v. Jackson

Filing 5

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed on 6/3/2021 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Richard, Tracey)(Clerk's Note: A copy of this order was mailed via 1st class mail to: Thomas E Bibbs, 3220 Norton, Kansas City, MO 64128)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
THOMAS E. BIBBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARILYN JACKSON, and FEDRICK
MARSHAL, d/b/a BUILDING
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, COMMUNITY
BUILDING GROUP, and SUNLIGHT
INVESTORS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 21-cv-00327-SRB

ORDER
In an Order dated May 14, 2021, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff Thomas E.
Bibbs’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. #3.) The Order
explained in part that (1) Plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourteenth
Amendment, or the Supremacy Clause; (2) absent a federal claim, the Court lacked diversity
jurisdiction because Plaintiff alleged that all parties are citizens of Missouri; and (3) “the
Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was wrongfully evicted and that his property was wrongfully
destroyed, but does not contain any facts or other allegations to support these conclusions.”
(Doc. #3, pp. 2-3.) The Order directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that addressed
these pleading deficiencies by June 7, 2021.
On June 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Civil Complaint Consistent With
Order of the Court,” along with exhibits. (Doc. #4.) Plaintiff states in part that “Respondents
Marilyn Jackson and Fedrick O. Marshall, jointly and severally, have engaged in a course of
conduct resulting in the loss of personal property, from January 2019 to present.” (Doc. #4,

p. 1.) Plaintiff states that the property at issue has “never been deeded or titled in the name of
either Respondent,” which can be “proven just by reviewing the applicable statutes, and has been
admitted . . . by Respondent Fedrick O. Marshall, along with the attached copy of the true and
correct title/deed of the property.” (Doc. #4, p. 1.) Plaintiff also states that “Marshall employed
the named corporations in his efforts to deprive me of my property without constructive due
process service of notice, making them proper parties to suit.” (Doc. #4, p. 1.) Plaintiff does not
provide any additional allegations in support of these assertions.
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s amendment does not cure the pleading
deficiencies identified in the Court’s Order of May 14, 2021. First, Plaintiff has failed to
adequately plead that this Court has either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). This Court can only hear very specific types of cases and Missouri state courts
typically hear cases related to property. This Order does not relate to the merits of Plaintiff’s
suit, but rather merely holds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that federal court is the
location for the suit. Second, even if the Court had jurisdiction, Plaintiff has failed to plead
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in the May 14, 2021 Order, it is hereby
ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Stephen R. Bough
STEPHEN R. BOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 3, 2021
2