Rogers v. Walmart Home Office et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff has 30 days in which to file sufficient evidence with the Court showing that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.00, the jurisdictional limit. The Court reserves the right to conduct further review of plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) after plaintiff addresses the matters set forth in this order. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter with the following text: December 1, 2015. To avoid confusion, any document plaintiff submits to the clerk of the court for filing in this case must clearlydisplay the case number. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM ROGERS, JR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WALMART HOME OFFICE and
)
AMANDA, Claim Manager,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:15CV272

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff William Rogers (“plaintiff”) filed his
complaint (Filing No. 1) on July 22, 2015, and has requested
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Court now conducts an

initial review of plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether
summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, a resident of Nebraska, sues the “Walmart
Home Office” and also a claim manager named Amanda.

He alleges

that on June 6, 2012, he fell in a Walmart in Oxnard, California.
Since his fall, he has suffered from back pain and “uncontrolable
[sic] urinating.”

(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 3.)

Plaintiff

claims Walmart settled the case and someone named Nancy L. cashed
the check.

(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 2, 5.)

Plaintiff alleges

he never received a check from Walmart, and he “never had a

chance to settle any amount with [] Amanda.”

(Filing No. 1 at

CM/ECF pp. 1-2.)
For relief, he asks that Walmart be required to reopen
“[his] case” and give him a settlement.

In addition, he asks

that criminal charges be filed against Nancy L.

(Filing No. 1 at

CM/ECF p. 5.)
II.

STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

The Court is required to review in forma pauperis
complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

The Court must dismiss a complaint or

any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim,
that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual
allegations to “nudge[] their claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be
dismissed.”

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70

(2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).

-2-

“The essential function of a complaint under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party
‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and
a general indication of the type of litigation involved.’”
Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th
Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th
Cir. 1999)).

However, “[a] pro se complaint must be liberally

construed, and pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading
standard than other parties.”

Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
III.

DISCUSSION

The Court notes as an initial matter that there may be
issues with respect to plaintiff’s choice of venue in this
matter.

In addition, it does not appear that plaintiff states a

viable claim for relief under any federal or state law.

However,

at this time, the Court will focus its analysis on the question
of subject-matter jurisdiction because, in evaluating plaintiff’s
claims, the Court must determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction is proper.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the

court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”)
Plaintiff set forth in his complaint that jurisdiction
is proper in this court on the basis of “Diversity of
-3-

Citizenship.”

(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 4.)

Plaintiff is

correct that federal district courts have original jurisdiction
over civil actions between citizens of different states where the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

But, plaintiff did not allege an amount in controversy exceeding
$75,000 and, even if he had, the Court would question whether
such an amount is legitimate.
Where a complaint “alleges a sufficient amount in
controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction, but . . . the
court questions whether the amount alleged is legitimate, the
party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove the requisite
amount by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Trimble v. Asarco,

Inc., 232 F.3d 946, 959 (8th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted)
(abrogated on other grounds by Exxon Mobil Corp. V. Allapattah
Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005)).

In addition, “[n]o

presumptive truthfulness attaches to the plaintiff’s allegations,
and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude
the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of the
jurisdictional claims.”

Id. (quotation omitted).

Plaintiff fails to state any facts or legal theories
alleging why defendants should be liable to him for an amount
exceeding $75,000.

Therefore, the Court will give him 30 days in

-4-

which to file sufficient evidence showing that the amount in
controversy is greater than $75,000.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff has 30 days in which to file sufficient

evidence with the Court showing that the amount in controversy is
greater than $75,000.00, the jurisdictional limit.
2.

The Court reserves the right to conduct further

review of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
after plaintiff addresses the matters set forth in this order.
3.

The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se

case management deadline in this matter with the following text:
December 1, 2015.
4.

To avoid confusion, any document plaintiff submits

to the clerk of the court for filing in this case must clearly
display the case number.
DATED this 3rd day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
* This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their Web sites. The Court accepts no
responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion
of the Court.
-5-