Small v. Zarvona Energy LLC
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1 Complaint Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Case 4:20-cv-01572 Document 5 Filed on 05/28/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 8
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 28, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JEFFERY PEARSON SMALL,
TDCJ #639945,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZARVONA ENERGY LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-20-1572
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff,
Jeffery Pearson Small (TDCJ #639945),
is a
state inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ").
Small has filed a Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 ("Complaint") (Docket Entry No. 1),
alleging state-law
claims against a local corporation. Because Small is an inmate who
proceeds in forma pauperis, the court is required to scrutinize the
claims and dismiss the Complaint,
in whole or in part,
if it
determines that the Complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted" or "seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
§ 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B).
28 U.S.C.
After considering
all of the pleadings, the court concludes that this case must be
dismissed for the reasons explained below.
Case 4:20-cv-01572 Document 5 Filed on 05/28/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 8
I.
Background
Small is currently confined by TDCJ at the Polunsky Unit,
which is located in Livingston,
Texas. 1
Public records clarify
that Small is incarcerated as the result of more than one prison
sentence entered against him in Harris County, Texas, where Houston
is located. 2
The defendant, Zarvona Energy LLC, is also located in
Houston. 3
Small alleges that he is a landowner who has rights under an
oil and gas lease operated by the defendant, which has failed to
pay or "underpaid" royalties due under that lease. 4
Small explains
that the defendant "bought" the lease from a different company
(Anadarko), which is not a party to this lawsuit. 5
Small accuses
the defendant of "unjust [e]nrichment" and "breach [of] contract"
for failing to pay him royalties as required under the lease. 6
Small seeks a "fix[ed] percentage" of "overriding mineral royalty
1
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.
available at:
See TDCJ Offender Information Details,
httos: // offender. tdcj . texas. gov
2020)
(last visited May 28,
(listing two convictions from Harris County, Texas, in 1992 and
2014).
2
3
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.
4
Id. at 3, 4.
5
Id. at 4.
6
Id. at 3, 4.
-2-
Case 4:20-cv-01572 Document 5 Filed on 05/28/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 8
revenues" and other damages in the amount of $100.00. 7
II.
Discussion
Although Small has submitted his claims on a pre-printed
complaint form for use by state prisoners in filing a civil rights
action
under
42
U.S.C.
§
1983,
his
allegations
against
the
defendant are limited to breach of contract and other claims that
are actionable, if at all, under state law. 8
Unlike state courts,
which have subject matter jurisdiction over a broad assortment of
causes and claims, " [ f] ederal courts are not courts of general
jurisdiction;
Article
III
they have only the power that is authorized by
of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by
Congress pursuant thereto." Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist.,
106 S. Ct. 1326, 1331 (1986) (citation omitted); In re FEMA Trailer
Formaldehyde Prods. Liab. Litig., 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 2012)
("Federal courts are courts
jurisdiction
7
conferred
by
of
limited
statute,
they
jurisdiction;
lack
the
without
power
to
Id. at 4.
The court is mindful that pleadings filed by pro.§§. litigants
are subject to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972) (per
curiam); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007)
("A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed [.] ")
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, the
Fifth Circuit has "frequently instructed district courts to
determine the true nature of a pleading by its substance, not its
label." Armstrong v. Capshaw, Goss & Bowers, LLP, 404 F.3d 933, 936
(5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted); see also United States v.
Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 n.1 (5th Cir. 1983) (courts may ignore the
erroneous citation of authority as well as the label or title a pro
se prisoner gives his pleading).
8
-3-
Case 4:20-cv-01572 Document 5 Filed on 05/28/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 8
adjudicate claims.")
(citations omitted).
Thus,
federal courts
have a duty to ensure the existence of subject matter jurisdiction
before reaching the merits of a case.
Oil Co., 119
s.
See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon
Ct. 1563, 1570 (1999) ("subject-matter delineations
must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the
highest level"); see also Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158,
161 (5th Cir. 2001) ( determining subject matter jurisdiction first
"prevents a court without jurisdiction from prematurely dismissing
a case with prejudice").
If a district court determines at any
time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction it "must dismiss the
action."
FED. R. Crv. P. 12 (h) (3)
Other than cases in which the United States is a party,
federal district courts only have authority to adjudicate cases
involving a federal question or a dispute between parties with
diversity of citizenship. See Columbraria Ltd. v. Pimienta, 110 F.
Supp. 2d 542, 545
(S.D. Tex. 2000)
(citing Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Amer., 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1676 (1994)).
Because
federal jurisdiction is not presumed to exist, the party seeking
federal
court
review
bears
the
burden
jurisdiction is proper.
of
demonstrating
that
Assuming that all of Small's
allegations are true, he fails to demonstrate that his Complaint
implicates
citizenship
a
federal
for
the
question
purpose
or
of
the
requisite
establishing
jurisdiction for reasons discussed briefly below.
-4-
diversity
subject
of
matter
Case 4:20-cv-01572 Document 5 Filed on 05/28/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 8
Federal Question Jurisdiction
1.
To establish a federal question a plaintiff must allege a
cognizable violation of his rights under the Constitution or
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As noted above, Small's
federal law.
Complaint was submitted on a pre-printed form for use by prisoners
seeking relief under the federal Civil Rights Act codified at 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
Assuming that Small intended to invoke the remedy
found in § 1983, he does not state a viable claim under this
provision.
"To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must first show a
violation of the Constitution or of federal laws, and then show
that the violation was committed by someone acting under color of
state law." Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 685 (5th
Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Small
makes neither showing because he does not allege the violation of
a constitutional or federally protected right.
Moreover, he does
not demonstrate that the defendant qualifies as a state actor. See
Lugar
v.
Edmundson
Oil
Co.,
102
S.
Ct.
2744,
2754
(1982)
(explaining that "the party charged with the deprivation must be a
person who may fairly be said to be a state actor," such as a state
official or one who has
significant
aid
from
either
state
"acted with or has obtained
officials"
or
whose
"conduct
is
otherwise chargeable to the State")
A district court is not required to entertain a complaint that
purports to seek recovery under the Constitution or laws of the
-5-
Case 4:20-cv-01572 Document 5 Filed on 05/28/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 8
United States if the alleged federal claim "clearly appears to be
immaterial
and
made
solely
for
the
purpose
of
obtaining
jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and
frivolous." Tiner v. Cockrell, 756 F. App'x 482, 482
2019)
(per curiam)
S. Ct. 773 (1946)).
(5th Cir.
(quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66
Because Small does not assert facts showing he
has a valid claim under § 1983 or any other federal law, the case
does not present a federal question for purposes of jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2.
Diversity of Citizenship
Federal courts can adjudicate cases in which a citizen of one
state alleges a violation of his or her rights under state law by
a citizen of another state and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). To properly allege diversity
jurisdiction
under
§
1332(a),
the
parties
need
to
establish
"complete diversity." MidCap Media Finance, LLC v. Pathway Data,
Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 313
(5th Cir. 2019)
(quoting McLaughlin v.
Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)).
That means "all persons on one side of the controversy [must] be
citizens of different states than all persons on the other side."
Id.
According to the Complaint, Small is a citizen of Texas who
resides at the Polunsky Unit in Livingston. 9
9
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3.
-6-
The only facts
Case 4:20-cv-01572 Document 5 Filed on 05/28/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 8
alleged about the defendant, which is listed as an "LLC" or Limited
Liability
Corporation,
is
the
location
of
its
corporate
This is insufficient to establish the
headquarters in Houston. 10
defendant's citizenship.
Unlike a corporation, which takes the citizenship of its state
of incorporation and its principal place of business, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 (c) (1),
"the citizenship of a [ n]
LLC is determined by the
citizenship of all of its members." MidCap Media Finance, 929 F.3d
310, 314 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co.,
542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008)) (alteration in original).
To
establish diversity jurisdiction, a party "must specifically allege
the citizenship
of every
member
of every LLC."
Id.
(quoting
Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd.,
851 F.3d
530, 536 (5th Cir. 2017)).
Small does not allege facts showing that the defendant has any
member outside of Texas.
A search of public records available on
Lexis indicates that the defendant is a small entity and that all
of its members are current or former corporate office holders
located in the Houston area.
Because Smith has not alleged facts
showing that complete diversity exists, he has not established that
this is a suit between parties of diverse citizenship as required
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Small has
not otherwise
shown
lOid.
-7-
that
there
is
any
proper
Case 4:20-cv-01572 Document 5 Filed on 05/28/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 8
jurisdictional basis for considering his
federal court. 11
matter
state-law
claims in
"A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject
jurisdiction
when
the
court
lacks
the
statutory
or
constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Hooks v. Landmark
Indus., Inc.,
797 F.3d 309,
312
(5th Cir. 2015)
internal quotation marks omitted).
jurisdiction,
(citation and
Absent a valid basis for
this court can take no further action and must
dismiss the complaint.
III.
See FED. R. Crv. P. 12 (h) (3).
Conc1usion and Order
Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS that the Prisoner
Civil Rights Complaint filed by Jeffery Pearson Small (Docket Entry
No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the plaintiff.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this:,s(h day
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 Small indicates that he filed suit against the defendant
previously in state court, but the case was "dismissed" for reasons
he does not disclose. See Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2.
-8-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?