Shepeard v. Royal Inn Express

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; finding as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Re: 1 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JESSIE SHEPEARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROYAL INN EXPRESS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-0082-CVE-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 1) and motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. # 2). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and, consistent with Supreme Court and Tenth
Circuit precedent, the Court will construe plaintiff’s pro se pleadings liberally. Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002). The Court has
reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, and it appears to allege the breach of a bailment. The Court will
consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, because the Court has a duty to consider
this issue whenever it appears that subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. FED. R. CIV. P.
12(h)(3).
The complaint alleges that plaintiff was staying with his fiancée1 at defendant motel, which
is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Dkt. # 1, at 2. Plaintiff became indebted to defendant. Id. at 3. On
February 11, 2015, plaintiff and defendant’s owner agreed that the owner would hold plaintiff’s
belongings, as well as those of plaintiff’s fiancée, in a safe place until plaintiff could pay the debt.
Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that, in spite of this agreement, defendant’s owner and two employees

1

The complaint is not clear as to plaintiff’s gender, nor the gender of plaintiff’s betrothed. As
plaintiff refers to the betrothed as “fiancée” rather than “fiancé,” the Court will assume that
the betrothed is female. Dkt. # 1, at 2, 3.

entered plaintiff’s motel room and discarded his and his fiancée’s possessions in the garbage. Id.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 12, 2015, seeking as relief the return of the items or their
monetary value. Id. at 3. Plaintiff’s complaint was submitted on a form intended for prisoners
seeking to remedy violations of their civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 1.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and there is a presumption against the
exercise of federal jurisdiction. Merida Delgado v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 916, 919 (10th Cir. 2005);
Penteco Corp. Ltd. P’ship--1985A v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991).
The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden to allege jurisdictional facts demonstrating
the presence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind.,
Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 182 (1936) (“It is incumbent upon the plaintiff properly to allege the
jurisdictional facts, according to the nature of the case.”); Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th
Cir. 2002) (“The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting
jurisdiction.”). The Court has an obligation to consider whether subject matter jurisdiction exists,
even if the parties have not raised the issue. The Tenth Circuit has stated that “[f]ederal courts ‘have
an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the
absence of a challenge from any party,’ and thus a court may sua sponte raise the question of
whether there is subject matter jurisdiction ‘at any stage in the litigation.’” 1mage Software, Inc. v.
Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any basis for subject matter jurisdiction and, regardless
of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court cannot permit plaintiff to proceed with the lawsuit if the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. Plaintiff alleges that both parties are citizens of
Oklahoma, Dkt. # 1, at 1, so the parties are not diverse and the Court cannot exercise diversity

2

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Court has also considered whether the complaint states
any basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. §
1331. Plaintiff alleges the existence and violation of a voluntary bailment of his and his fiancée’s
possessions. Dkt. # 1, at 2. Such issues are matters of state, not federal, law. See OKLA. STAT. tit.
15, § 459 (“The duties and liabilities of a bailee by whom services are rendered or of whom services
are required on the thing bailed are subject to the general laws of the state, and may be regulated by
contract.”). Although plaintiff filed his complaint on a form intended to remedy civil rights
violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff did not allege the violation of a civil or constitutional
right by defendant. Broadly construing the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds the
complaint does not present a federal question, and the parties are not diverse. Pursuant to Rule
12(h)(3), plaintiff’s case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s case is dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. A separate judgment of dismissal is entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Dkt. # 2) is moot.
DATED this 18th day of February, 2015.

3