Opinion
Civil Action 00-0892-P-C
March 8, 2001
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a handwritten complaint commencing this action (Doc. 1) together with a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2). This action has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(1). It is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. Nature of Proceedings .
The complaint that is before the Court is a superseding Court-ordered amended complaint (Doc. 4). The Court reviewed Plaintiff's original complaint (Doc. 1) and found that it did not state the basis of the Court's jurisdiction over her action and facts to support the Court's jurisdiction (Doc. 3). The Court also found that original complaint had other pleading problems, such as failure to identify clearly the capacity in which she was suing the Defendants and what she wants the Court to do for her (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was ordered to correct these deficiencies in an amended complaint which would supersede her original complaint (Doc. 3).
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff's jurisdictional statement is: "This action arises due to the violation of Plaintiff [sic] rights." (Doc. 4, at 2) To support this jurisdictional basis, Plaintiff alleges that following. Plaintiff identified as Defendants Hotel Reed Nursing Home, J. T. Hall Funeral Home, and the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hotel Reed Nursing Home was negligent when her father's legs were amputated without gaining her permission, when they did not notify her of her father's death, and when they released her father's body to Defendant J. T. Hall Funeral Home without contacting her. For her pain and sorrow, Plaintiff seeks "monetary funds of . . . compensatory damages. or otherwise, for pecuniary loss, emotional pain suffering, mental anguish . . . [sic]." (ellipses in original)
Next, Plaintiff alleges that she had her father's power of attorney for his legal affairs and that she signed the medical papers to place her father in the VA Hospital. Plaintiff states that she holds Defendant VA liable for recommending that her father be placed in the poorest allied health facility that she ever witnessed and that the VA and the nursing home are liable for amputating her father's legs. Plaintiff asserts that she has sought counseling because her nerves and self-esteem are gone and that she has lost twenty pounds because she can no longer sleep or eat and has nightmares. Plaintiff states that she only has memories and no money. For relief, Plaintiff requests "compensatory damages or otherwise for her pecuniary loss, loss of pay and benefits, emotional, pain | and suffering, inconvenience mental anguish nervous break down, loss of enjoyment of life and costs and expenses of prosecuting this action, including an award of reasonable attorney's fee/ court fee and interest[.] [A]ward the Plaintiff monies in the form of punitive and/or liquidated damages against the Defendant(s) [sic]."
II. Discussion .
A federal court is a court of limited of jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). That is, a federal court is authorized to entertain only certain actions which the Constitution or Congress has authorized it to hear. Id. "It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, . . . , and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction, . . . ." Id. (citations omitted).
Because a court is powerless to act beyond its grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court is obligated to raise whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the litigation. Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001). "[O]nce a court determines that there has been no grant that covers a particular case, the court's sole remaining act is to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction." Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409-10 (11th Cir. 1999)).
Plaintiff's statement that her "rights" (Doc. 4, at 2) have been violated is inadequate to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. For this deficiency alone, Plaintiff's action is due to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Even though the Court is required to liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings, the Court does not have "license to serve as de facto counsel for a party . . ., or to re-write an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action. . . ." GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). Notwithstanding, the undersigned will review Plaintiff's complaint to determine if her complaint arises from the two most common sources of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction even though Plaintiff did not plead them.
Because Plaintiff mentioned only that her "rights" were violated with no other specific information being provided, the Court can only speculate as to which basis of the Court's jurisdiction would be analogous to this statement. The most analogous basis of jurisdiction to Plaintiff's statement is the Court's federal question jurisdiction which addresses violations of rights under the Constitution or federal law.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Congress has granted a federal district court the authority to hear cases that present federal questions. Section 1331 provides that a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear "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, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). "If jurisdiction is based on the existence of a federal question, the jurisdictional allegation should state that the action arises under a particular statute or provision of the Constitution and the body of the complaint must state facts showing that the case does in fact arise under federal law." Kirkland Masonry, Inc. v. Comm'r Internal Revenue Serv., 614 F.2d 532, 533 (5th Cir. 1980) (citing Wright, Federal Courts p. 327 (2d ed. 1970)); see Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc), adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.
In the amended complaint (Doc. 4), Plaintiff identifies no federal statute or constitutional provision that has been violated. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's action.
The other main source of federal subject matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332 provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between... citizens of different States. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1). Plaintiff is a citizen of Alabama, and Defendants are identified by Plaintiff has being located in Mississippi. However, Plaintiff has not specified a certain amount of damages that she seeks to recover.
Plaintiff's failure to allege damages in the amount of at least $75,000 precludes this Court from exercising its diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this action. Furthermore, a court "is obligated to assure itself that the case involves the requisite amount in controversy." Morrison, 228 F.3d at 1261. Examining Plaintiff's allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims would not support a damages recovery of $75,000 in order to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold. Thus, Plaintiff is not able to avail herself of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
III. Conclusion .
Based upon the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.