James v. LeMay et al

Filing 7

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (see order) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 2/8/2010) (tln)

DISTRICTCOURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTOF TEXAS NORTHERN D A L L A S DIVISION T E R R YJAMES
Plaintiff,

VS. LeMAY,ET AL. RICHARD
Defendants.

N O .3-10-CV-0076-N

F I N D I N G S AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE U N I T E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h i s casehas been referred to the United Statesmagistratejudge for initial screening from the districtcourt. The findings p u r s u a nto 28 U.S.C.$ 636(b)anda standing t orderof reference judge are as follow: of a n d recommendation the magistrate I. T h i s is a pro se civil action brought by Terry James,a citizen of Texas, againstthree complaint a of e m p l o y e e s FiestaFood Mart, Inc. On JanuaryI 5, 2010,plaintiff tendered three-page the t o the district clerk and filed an applicationto proceedinforma pauperis. Because information to that he lacksthe fundsnecessary prosecute p r o v i d e dby plaintiff in his pauper's affidavit indicates informapauperis andallowedthe complaintto be filed. leaveto proceed the t h i s case, courtgranted then were sentto plaintiff in order to obtain additional information aboutthe Written interrogatories 2,2010. The courtnow on the f a c t u a lbasisof this suit. Plaintiff answered intenogatories February for that this caseshouldbe summarilydismissed lack of subjectmatterjurisdiction. determines

il. in P l a i n t i f f , who is African-American,was hired as a night stockerat a Fiestasupermarket that J u l y 2008. (SeePlf. Compl. at 1). Threemonthslater,plaintiff complainedto his supervisors racial term in his presence.(Id.). Insteadof taking disciplinary t w o co-workersuseda derogatory a c t i o n against the co-workers, the supervisors accusedplaintiff of theft and terminated his e m p l o y m e n t . (See id. at l-2). Following his termination, plaintiff alleges that three Fiesta

him a "thief'to potential Tristein--called e m p l o y e e s - - R i c h a rLeMay, WandaParish,and Theresa d and Commission,the EEOC, a stateprosecutor, in pleadings e m p l o y e r sthe TexasUnemployment , federallawsuit. (ld. at2:Mag. J. Intenog.#l). Plaintiffnow suesLeMay,Parish, f i l e d in another a n d Tristein for "defamation of character" and "conspiracy to interfere with [his] right to e m p l o y m e n t . " (SeeMag. J. Intenog. #l). A. T h e court must initially examinethe basisfor federalsubjectmatterjurisdiction. Unless o t h e r w i s eprovidedby statute,federaldistrict courtshavejurisdiction over: (l) federalquestions and (2) civil actionsbetween a r i s i n gunderthe Constitution,laws, or treatiesof the United States; $75,000, c i t i z e n sof different statesor foreign nationswhere the amount in controversyexceeds to of and costs. See28 U.S.C.$$ 1331& 1332(a).A party seeking invokethe e x c l u s i v e interest j u r i s d i c t i o n of a federalcourt must provethatjurisdiction is proper. SeeBoudreauv. UnitedStates, , 5 3 F . 3 d8 1 , 8 2( 5 t h C i r .1 9 9 5 )c e r t .d e n i e d , l l 6 S . C t . 7 7 l ( 1 9 9 6 ) . P l a i n t i f f doesnot allegea cognizableclaim arising under federallaw. Although the Civil C o v e r Sheetsubmittedby plaintiff indicatesthat he is suing for a civil rights conspiracyunder42 is defendants for "defamation suggest his claim against that answers U . S . C .$ 1985,his interrogatory underTexaslaw, not federallaw. See o f character."(SeeMag. J. Interrog.#l). Sucha claim arises

at Waddleton Blalock,277 F.3d 1374(Table),2001 WL 1485851 * I (5th Cir. Nov. 16,2001), v. including F.2d 1550,1556(5th Cir. 1988)(claimsfor defamation, c i t i n g Geterv. Fortenbercy,849 libel and slander,are statelaw mattersnot actionableunder any federal statute). Moreover, plaintiff h a sfailed to allegeany factsto establisha civil rights conspiracy.In order to maintaina causeof discriminatoryanirnusand interference a c t i o nundersection1985,plaintiff must show class-based SeeYoesv. Owens, w i t h a right that is protectedagainstprivate as well as official encroachment. Brayv. Alexandria at WL 440460 *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb.25,2005),citing No.3-03-CV-1750-D,2005 W o m e n 'HealthClinic,506U.S. 263,268, I 13 S.Ct.753,758,122 L.Ed.zd34 (1993). Evenif s thereis dimension, p l a i n t i f f could showthat the defendants interferedwith a right of constitutional claim fails as discriminatoryanimus. As a result,plaintiffs conspiracy n o allegation class-based of a m a t t e r o f l a w .Id.,citingGantv.Principi,No.3-03-CV-1209-BD,2004WL2988549at*3(l'{.D. T e x . Dec.27.2004\.1 from the face of the N o r is there any basisfor federaldiversityjurisdiction. It is apparent complaint and interrogatory answersthat plaintiff and all defendantsare citizens of Texas. (See must thereis no basisfor federalsubjectmatterjurisdiction,this case M a g . J. Interrog.#3). Because b e dismissed.

RECOMMBNDATION jurisdiction. matter for dismissed lackof subject should summarily be P l a i n t i f f scomplaint

I The court notesthat plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit againsthis former employer,FiestaFood Mart, Inc., and the pay, and retaliationin violation of Title disparate s t o r emanager,RichardLeMay, alleginghostilework environment, on V I I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,42 U.S.C. $ 2000e, et seq. That casewas recentlydismissed judgment. Jamesv. LeMay,No. 3-09-CV-071l-P (N.D. Tex. Jan.14,2010). To the extentplaintiff attempts summary suchclaims t o assert claimsin the instantcasethat arebasedon the "samenucleusof operativefacts" asthe earliercase, Inc. v. Singh,428 F.3d 559,57| (5th Cir. 2005),cert. a r e b a n e dby resjudicata. SeeTestMastersEducationalSentices, d e n i e d . l 2 6 S.Ct. 1662(2000.

A copy of this report and recommendationshall be servedon all parties in the manner p r o v i d e dby law. Any party who objectsto any part of this report and recommendation must file within l4 daysafterbeingserved with a copy. See28 U.S.C.$ 636(bX1); specific writtenobjections F p p . R. Ctv. P. 72(b). In order to be specific,an objectionmust identi$'the specificfinding or r e c o m m e n d a t i o n which objectionis made,statethe basisfor the objection,and specifythe place to judge'sreportandrecommendation is wherethe disputeddetermination found. An i n the magistrate judge or by o b j e c t i o nthat merelyincorporates reference refersto the briefing beforethe magistrate partyfrom appealing will bar the aggrieved i s not specific. Failureto file specificwritten objections judge that areaccepted adopted the by or of t h e factualfindingsand legalconclusions the magistrate Automobile Ass'n, Douglassv. UnitedServices of d i s t r i c tcourt,exceptupongrounds plain error. See 7 9 F.3d 1415,1417(5th Cir. 1996).

8,2010. D A T E D : February

LAN JUDGE N,{AGISTRATE S'TATE,S