Mambula, Theo v. Missing and Exploitated Children (Agency)

Filing 6

ORDER that plaintiff Theo Ilungi Mambula may have until October 12, 2018, to submit a supplement to the complaint. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 9/28/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

THEO ILUNGI MAMBULA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN (AGENCY),

ORDER
17-cv-966-jdp

Defendant.
Plaintiff Theo Ilungi Mambula, a Madison resident, filed this lawsuit naming “Missing
and Exploited Children (Agency)” as the defendant. I dismissed Mambula’s complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because I could not tell what entity he intended to sue or
how defendant harmed him. Dkt. 4. I gave him a chance to submit an amended complaint
better explaining his allegations. Mambula has responded by filing a letter in which he provides
more information. Dkt. 5. I will consider the letter to be a supplement to the original
complaint, and I will screen his allegations in those two documents together, just as I screened
his original complaint.
Mambula now identified the defendant as “Dane County Missing and Exploited
Children Northside section in Madison.” Id. at 1. My own cursory research does not reveal an
entity with this name, but I infer from Mambula’s allegations that defendant is a Dane County
agency. Mambula also states that he is “complaining of defamation” because defendant is
“spreading fault[y] news about [him].” Id. I take him to be saying that the false information is
that he is a sex offender; my research does not show Mambula’s name on the state or
nationwide sex-offender databases. He says that as a result, he cannot get a job and he has been

treated poorly by his landlord and others in the community. He also alleges that agency
employees have harassed him and his family in a number of ways.
There are still problems with Mambula’s allegations that require correction before he
may proceed with any claims. It is still not clear that this court has jurisdiction over his claims.
Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94
(2010). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that
jurisdiction is proper. Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802–03 (7th
Cir. 2009).
Having one’s reputation harmed by being incorrectly labeled a sex offender does not
implicate a constitutional right, so Mambula has no federal constitutional claim for defamation.
See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976) (“[W]e hold that the interest in reputation asserted
in this case is neither ‘liberty’ nor ‘property’ guaranteed against state deprivation without due
process of law.”). He also alleges that agency employees have harassed him and his family, but
he does not name any individuals as defendants, nor does he allege that the agency’s decisions
are the results of a policy or custom, as is required to bring a constitutional claim directly
against the county. I also note that some of these allegations are implausible: for instance, he
states that “agency” employees followed him around constantly, even to Tanzania. In any
event, he currently states no claims for relief regarding this harassment. Mambula is free to
amend his complaint again to better explain his allegations if there are claims he wishes to bring
against the county or individual county employees.
Defamation is a state-law claim, and this court cannot hear cases involving only statelaw claims unless the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is

2

greater than $75,000 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Mambula already alleged that he is a citizen of
Wisconsin, although he now says that he is in danger of deportation, which suggests that he is
a foreign citizen. Even so, Mambula cannot bring a diversity lawsuit if he is “lawfully admitted
for permanent residence in the United States and [is] domiciled in [the same state as
defendant].” § 1332(a)(2). Mambula also does not allege that the amount in controversy is
greater than $75,000.
So for now, the only claim that Mambula potentially states is a Wisconsin-law
defamation claim against Dane County. But before I can allow him to proceed on a defamation
claim, he will have to provide a supplement to his complaint that addresses the diversityjurisdiction problems discussed above. In particular, he will have to explain:
•

Is he a United States citizen?

•

If not, what is his status? For instance, is he a lawful permanent resident of the
United States?

•

Does he seek money damages, and if so, how much?

I will give Mambula a final, short time to provide this supplement. If he fails to properly
address these questions, I will dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Theo Ilungi Mambula may have until October 12, 2018,
to submit a supplement to the complaint addressing the jurisdictional questions discussed in
the opinion above.
Entered September 28, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4