Opinion
No. 1:02CV389
November 13, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. #5], Motion for a More Definite Statement pursuant to Rules 8(a) and 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. #7], and Motion to Strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) [Doc. #9]. For the reasons below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED. Because the Motion to Dismiss is granted, the Motion for a More Definite Statement and the Motion to Strike are MOOT.
I.
Plaintiff Michael Broxton filed a pro se complaint in May 2002 naming Father Conall McHugh, Jude DeAngelo, and Bishop William G. Curlin as Defendants. The Complaint contains several handwritten sections making reference to numerous legal authorities including the United States Code, the Model Penal Code, and North Carolina case law. The complaint also contains photocopies of legal journal articles on topics such as "Taking by Fraud and Deceit," "Elements of Agency Relationship," and "Acts Within Agent's Apparent or Implied Authority." Throughout the complaint, Mr. Broxton makes repeated references to the phrase corrupt public morals in a political conspiracy. While portions of the handwritten complaint are illegible, Mr. Broxton appears to allege that at least one of the individual Defendants, although it is unclear which Defendant, has committed tortious acts. In addition, Mr. Broxton appears to allege that the other individual Defendants, and perhaps the Diocese of Charlotte, are vicariously liable for those torts through respondeat superior liability.
The Complaint does not list the Diocese of Charlotte as a Defendant, however, the Motions filed by the Defendants include the Diocese of Charlotte as a party.
Without answering the complaint, Defendants timely filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, on the grounds of both Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Technically, a complaint cannot be dismissed pursuant to both 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) because if a court does not have jurisdiction over the claim, it cannot consider the sufficiency of the claim as required by 12(b)(6). Due to the incomprehensible nature of the complaint, however, it is impossible for this Court to determine whether there is a basis for federal jurisdiction without considering the substance of the allegations. Therefore, this Memorandum Opinion will address both 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
II.
Defendants request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they can only hear cases authorized by the Constitution or by statute. See U.S. Const. Art. 3 § 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1330-1368 (West Supp. 2002). Unless the case involves specialized issues such as admiralty and patents, a federal district court typically will have jurisdiction only if the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship) are satisfied.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that "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 (West Supp. 2002). The Supreme Court has explained that "Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). In this case, Mr. Broxton appears to be alleging tort and fraud claims, which are created solely by state law. Based on the complaint, there does not appear to be federal question jurisdiction in this case.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332 specifies the requirements that must be satisfied for jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (West Supp. 2002). First, the amount in controversy between the parties must exceed $75,000. Id. Second, the parties must be citizens of different states. Id. In this case, the complaint does not allege that there is diversity of citizenship between the parties or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Fourth Circuit has held that "[w]hen a Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenge is raised to the factual basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction is on the plaintiff." Richmond, Fredericksburg Potomac R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991). Because Mr. Broxton has not pled sufficient facts to support diversity of citizenship, section 1332 cannot serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction.
In their Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #5], the Defendants assert that the parties are all citizens of North Carolina.
III.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a complaint may be dismissed "for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court has explained that a complaint should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should only be granted if, after accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of a claim that entitles him to relief. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999). Moreover, a motion to dismiss must be assessed in light of the pleading standards of Rule 8, which require only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.
When determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a 12(b)(6) challenge, a pro se complaint is to be read liberally. Hudspeth v. Figgins, 584 F.2d 1345, 1347 (1978). Despite the liberal standards applicable to pro se complaints, Mr. Broxton's complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted: he has not described any acts committed by any of the Defendants that would entitle him to relief.
IV.
Based on the complaint, there does not appear to be a basis for federal jurisdiction in this case. Alternatively, if there is subject matter jurisdiction, Mr. Broxton's complaint has failed to state grounds upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Because the Motion to Dismiss is Granted, the Motion for a More Definite Statement and the Motion to Strike are MOOT.