Dinkins v. Region Ten CSB

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/26/18. (jcj)

01/26/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION

MELVIN DINKINS,

CASE NO. 3:18–CV–00001
Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGION TEN CSB,
Defendant.

JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the question of subject matter jurisdiction.1
It appears Plaintiff is attempting to raise claims of fraud, “fiduciary abuse,” breach of contract,
negligence, misappropriation, and misrepresentation. (Dkt. 2). Plaintiff seeks estimated damages
of around $200 million. Even construing the Complaint liberally, I find that the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, and I will dismiss the action.
I. Standard of Review
A determination of whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold matter.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), “[i]f the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” “Federal courts are not
courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the
Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.” Bender v. Williamsport
Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). See, e.g. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “When a
requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues
that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented.” Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141
1

The pro se Plaintiff recently filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which I denied.
(Dkt. 3).
1

(2012). The requirement of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or forfeited by the
parties. Id. However, a pro se complaint is to be “liberally construed” and “must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007).
II. Discussion
A.

Federal Question Jurisdiction is Lacking
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence
of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides
that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the
plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987);
see also Martin v. Lagualt, 315 F. Supp. 2d 811 (E.D. Va. 2004) (applying the well-pleaded
complaint rule in the context of a pro se complaint). Plaintiff has filed a twenty page Complaint
asserting federal question jurisdiction is present, but has failed to state a federal cause of action.
(Dkt. 2). Plaintiff purports to bring claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), (d),
(g); 42 U.S.C. 2000h-4 (a provision dealing with preemption); 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (The Rules of
Decision Act); and other sundry Virginia state statutes.2
Yet none of the rules or statutes referenced by Plaintiff in his Complaint is sufficient to
support federal question jurisdiction. See Pineville Real Estate Operation Corp. v. Michael, 32

Plaintiff does cite 28 U.S.C. § 1331 once in his Complaint, but only in reference to an
ambiguous “Defense” claim and “Sovereign Immunity.” Notwithstanding the fact that § 1331 is
not a cause of action, neither of Plaintiff’s referenced “claims” present a federal question.
(Compl. ¶ 14). Pressl v. Appalachian Power Co., 842 F.3d 299, 302 (4th Cir. 2016) (“It is not
enough that there may be a defense grounded in federal law or that the complaint anticipates and
rebuts such a defense.”). Additionally, Plaintiff makes a passing reference to Medicare, but does
not allege a violation of any federal statute.
2
2

F.3d 88, 90 (4th Cir. 1994) (recognizing that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide
an independent ground for subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331); Johnson v. Bonaventura,
No. 2:13-CV-524 JCM CQH, 2013 WL 2319089, at *3 (D. Nev. May 28, 2013) (finding no
federal question jurisdiction when a party has pled state law theories that do not turn “on the
answer to a federal question” in light of 42 U.S.C. 2000h-4); Pendergraph v. Crown HondaVolvo, LLC, 104 F. Supp. 2d 586, 589 (M.D.N.C. 1999); Richardson v. L'Eggs Brands Inc., Div.
of Sara Lee Corp., 89 F.3d 829 (4th Cir. 1996) (“The Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1652,
requires federal courts sitting in diversity to apply the forum state's substantive law and federal
procedural law.”).3 Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
B.

Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction is Lacking
Additionally, Federal courts possess original subject matter jurisdiction over all civil

actions, including solely state law claims, when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
exclusive interests and costs, and the parties’ citizenship is completely diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005) (“Since Strawbridge v. Curtiss . . . we have
read the statutory formulation ‘between . . . citizens of different States’ to require complete
diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants.”). A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of
every state in which it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

Plaintiff does reference “USC 1983 Title 31” in his Complaint. (Compl. ¶ 2). Even
assuming that Plaintiff meant 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff alleges in connection alleges a violation
of Federal Rule of Procedure 9(b)—which is not a valid cause of action. See Michael, 32 F.3d at
90. Additionally, Plaintiff’s reference to § 1983 on his civil cover sheet is not a properly pled
claim before the Court. See Shadwell v. Griffin, No. 5:11-CV-00065, 2011 WL 3610720, at *1
n.1 (W.D. Va. Aug. 16, 2011) (citing Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir.1989);
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n. 9 (1989)). To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert
a claim under § 1983 he fails to do so.
3
3

Plaintiff does not assert that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. But even
if he did: the parties lack complete diversity. Plaintiff is a citizen of Virginia. (Dkt. 2 at ECF 1–2;
dkt. 2-2). Plaintiff alleges that Region Ten CSB, the only Defendant in this case, is a citizen of
Virginia. (Dkt. 2 at ECF 1). Indeed, Region Ten CSB is incorporated in Virginia,4 and has its
principal place of business in Virginia.5 Id. Thus, the parties lack diversity and the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to hear the state law claims.
III. Conclusion
Because Plaintiff fails to put forth any federal cause of action, and because the parties in
this case are not completely diverse, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a certified copy of this memorandum opinion
and accompanying order to the pro se Plaintiff.
26th
Entered this ____ day of January, 2018.

4

According to the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Region Ten CSB is a
Corporation formed in Virginia with its Principal Office in Charlottesville, Virginia. See
Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission, Business Entity Details,
https://sccefile.scc.virginia.gov/Business/0385156 (last visited January 22, 2018). See also
United States v. Garcia, 855 F.3d 615, 621 (4th Cir. 2017) (“This court and numerous others
routinely take judicial notice of information contained on state and federal government
websites.”).
5

According to the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Region Ten CSB is a
healthcare provider, with the state of Virginia as its “Primary Practice Address.” See U.S.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, NPPES NPI Registry, https://npiregistry.cms.
hhs.gov/registry/provider-view/1942270699 (last visited January 22, 2018).
4