Opinion
No. 3-02-CV-1029-D
June 10, 2002
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are as follow:
I.
This is an unspecified civil action. Plaintiff Jaavier Carr, an inmate in the TDCJ-ID, has sued FHM Magazine Company, a magazine publisher located in New York City. On May 15, 2002, plaintiff tendered an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a one-page handwritten complaint. The information provided by plaintiff in his pauper's affidavit indicates that he lacks the funds necessary to prosecute this case. The Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. After further consideration, the Court determines that this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II.
Plaintiff alleges that he paid for a magazine subscription but has not received any issues. Despite repeated inquiries, defendant refuses to acknowledge that plaintiff has paid for a subscription. By this action, plaintiff seeks $20 million in actual and punitive damages as compensation for "stress" and "migraine headaches" caused by defendant's conduct.
III.
To the extent that plaintiff has alleged any claim against defendant, it arises solely under state law. Therefore, the only basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Federal diversity jurisdiction is proper if the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Id. In determining the amount of controversy, the court must look to the amount of damages claimed by plaintiff in good faith. Allen v. R H Oil Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995). However, the court should look to the actual amount in controversy, not just the damages claimed. See Diefenthal v. C.A.B., 681 F.2d 1039, 1052 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 103 S.Ct. 732 (1983) (court would be remiss in accepting every damage claim at face value, no matter how trivial the underlying injury).
Here, plaintiff seeks $20 million in damages as a result of defendant's failure to deliver a magazine he ordered. Such an allegation is patently insufficient to support a good faith claim for damages in excess of $75,000. See, e.g. id. at 1052-53 (brusque refusal by flight attendant to seat passenger in particular section of plane will not justify damage claim of $10,000); Christensen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 633 F.2d 529, 530-31 (9th Cir. 1980) (rude and discourteous conduct by airline agents insufficient to support damages in excess of $10,000); Jones v. Malaco Music, 2F. Supp.2d 880, 884 (S.D. Miss. 1998) (dismissing diversity case where plaintiff sought $5.8 million in damages as a result of failure to timely receive $896.39 payment); see also Free v. United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989) (federal courts not proper forum for resolving small tort claims brought by prisoners); Raymond v. Alvord ISD, 639 F.2d 257, 258 (5th Cir. 1981) (questioning whether federal jurisdiction is proper in cases involving "frivolous or insubstantial" property interests). Because plaintiff has failed to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement, diversity jurisdiction is not proper.
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
On this date the United States magistrate judge made written findings and a recommended disposition of plaintiff's pro se complaint in the above styled and numbered cause. The United States district clerk shall serve a copy of these findings and recommendations on all parties by certified mail, return receipt requested. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings and recommendations must file and serve written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings and recommendations to which objections are being made. The district court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. The failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations shall bar that party from obtaining a de novo determination by the district court. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to proposed findings and recommendations within ten (10) days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).