Glover v Brown et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 6/23/17. (sas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
RUFUS M. GLOVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN D. BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:17-cv-00284
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Rufus M. Glover, proceeding pro se, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. No. 1). Based on his financial affidavit, the court concludes that Glover is
financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis and so will grant his motion. The clerk
should not issue summonses for defendants at this time, however. Instead, the court
notes that Glover has failed to adequately plead facts concerning jurisdiction in this case,
and so the court will direct that he file an amended complaint setting forth the basis for
this court’s jurisdiction.
“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.” Brickwood Contractors., Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385,
390 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541
(1986)). Hence, “questions of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any point
during the proceedings and may (or, more precisely, must) be raised sua sponte by the
court.” Id.

Generally speaking, a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a civil
action only if it raises a question of federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or it is between
citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Evans v.
B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 646 (4th Cir. 1999). If he cannot do so, then the court
must dismiss his complaint. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).
Glover’s complaint is skeletal and contains little factual information or
background about his claims. Instead, he simply states that two named defendants “filed
fraudulent taxes in [his] name” and he seeks $75,000 in damages “to the church and
$9,900 to[him]self.” (Dkt. No. 2). He does not identify a basis for jurisdiction anywhere
in his complaint, and his civil cover sheet states that the basis of jurisdiction is that the
United States government is the plaintiff, which is not accurate. To the extent that Mr.
Glover is seeking to report criminal activity, as opposed to filing a civil lawsuit for
damages, he should contact the appropriate law enforcement authorities.
Because the United States is not a party to this civil suit, however, jurisdiction
must be premised on either a federal question or diversity. This court’s diversity
jurisdiction generally allows the exercise of jurisdiction if the parties are citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. Cent. W. Va. Energy
Co. v. Mt. State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101, 103 (4th Cir. 2011). Based on the addresses
given in the complaint, it appears that both the plaintiff and two defendants are from
Virginia, so there is not complete diversity.1

1

Although he has not checked the box for “diversity,” he nonetheless completed the section
asking for citizenship of the parties. Confusingly, he states that he is both a citizen of this state and a
citizen of another state. As to defendants, he has checked boxes indicating that they are incorporated or

2

To the extent that Mr. Glover intends to invoke a federal question or to bring a
claim based on a particular statute, he has not identified that statute anywhere in his
complaint. Nor do the bare-bones allegations in his complaint make it readily apparent
that there is a federal question involved.
For all of these reasons, the court concludes that Mr. Glover has not adequately
pled facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Rather than dismiss his complaint and
require him to refile his suit, however, the court will instead give him an additional 30
days to supplement or amend his complaint to properly assert jurisdiction.
The court also notes that, even if it has jurisdiction, the court shall “at any time”
dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)–(iii). In evaluating his pro se complaint, the court
construes it liberally, holding it to “less stringent standards that formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Nonetheless, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim of relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)).
Given the lack of detail in Mr. Glover’s complaint, the court might well find that
it fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. It does not identify a specific
cause of action or a legal theory for recovery, and does not set forth sufficient facts from
which the court can determine what Mr. Glover’s claims are, let alone what the facts are
in support of them. By way of example only, although Mr. Glover alleges that

have their principal place of business both in this state and in another state. (Id.) In his complaint itself,
however, he lists his own address and the addresses of two defendants as being in Roanoke, Virginia.

3

defendants filed fraudulent taxes in his name, he has not identified whether the taxes
were state or federal taxes, nor has he identified what type of tax (income tax, sales tax,
business tax, etc.) is at issue. His complaint also fails to set forth facts about when the
“fraudulent taxes” were filed and fails to allege—or explain how—he was damaged.
Additionally, allegations of fraud are generally required to be pleaded with
particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). At a minimum, this means Mr.
Glover must plead “the time, place, and contents of the false representations,” in addition
to the identity of the individuals who made the false statements. Harrison v.
Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784–94 (4th Cir. 1999).
Due to these deficiencies, his claims may be subject to dismissal in their current
form. Nonetheless, because the court is allowing Mr. Glover to amend to assert a basis
for jurisdiction, the court will also allow him to include in any amended complaint he
files any additional detail in support of his claims that he wishes to add.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and will give Mr. Glover 30 days to file an amended complaint that sets forth
both the purported basis for the court’s jurisdiction and any additional detail he wishes to
submit in support of his claim. An appropriate order will follow.
Entered: June 23, 2017.

/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon
Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

4