Opinion
No. 3:19-cv-3012-E-BN
01-08-2020
PEARLINE CHASE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN B. WILLIAMS, III and JBW ENTERPRISES, Defendants.
FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Pearline Chase, providing that her address is in Cedar Hill, Texas, filed a single-page pro se complaint against an individual and a business entity, seeking damages from the defendants based on alleged copyright infringement. See Dkt. No. 3. Her lawsuit was referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from United States District Judge Ada Brown.
After reviewing Chase's complaint, the Court ordered her to show in writing that it has subject matter jurisdiction over her lawsuit. See Dkt. No. 6. She responded. See Dkt. No. 7. And, considering the complaint and Chase's response, the undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that the Court should dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
"Within constitutional bounds, Congress decides what cases the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider." Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212 (2007); see also Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) ("Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent jurisdiction conferred by statute, lack the power to adjudicate claims."). Correspondingly, federal courts have an independent duty to examine their own subject matter jurisdiction. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583-84 (1999) ("Subject-matter limitations ... keep the federal courts within the bounds the Constitution and Congress have prescribed. Accordingly, subject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest level." (citations omitted)).
Because Chase chose to file her lawsuit in federal court, it is her burden to establish federal jurisdiction. See Butler v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 762 F. App'x 193, 194 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) ("[A]ssertions [that] are conclusory [ ] are insufficient to support [an] attempt to establish subject-matter jurisdiction." (citing Evans v. Dillard Univ., 672 F. App'x 505, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2017) (per cuiam); Jeanmarie v. United States, 242 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 2001))). And if she does not, this lawsuit must be dismissed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.").
Under their limited jurisdiction, federal courts generally may only hear a case if it involves a question of federal law or where diversity of citizenship exists between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. In diversity cases, each plaintiff's citizenship must be diverse from each defendant's citizenship, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (b). Federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331 "exists when '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.'" Borden v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). "A federal question exists 'if there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law.'" In re Hot-Hed Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 1995)).
The Court will not assume it has jurisdiction. Rather, "the basis upon which jurisdiction depends must be alleged affirmatively and distinctly and cannot be established argumentatively or by mere inference." Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N.A., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Ill. Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 636 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1983)); see also MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2019) ("Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, parties must make 'clear, distinct, and precise affirmative jurisdictional allegations' in their pleadings." (quoting Getty Oil, 841 F.2d at 1259)).
Liberally construed, Chase's stating that defendants "infringed upon" her "U.S. copyrights" does not itself implicate a substantial, disputed question of federal law. Dkt. No. 3; see, e.g., Butler, 762 F. App'x at 194; cf. Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004, 1006 (5th Cir. 2019) ("Some claims are 'so insubstantial, implausible, ... or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.' Federal courts lack power to entertain these 'wholly insubstantial and frivolous' claims." (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Oneida Cnty., 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974), then Southpark Square Ltd. v. City of Jackson, Miss., 565 F.2d 338, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1977))).
Chase also has not affirmatively and distinctly alleged diversity jurisdiction through the allegations of her complaint. See generally Dkt. No. 3. She fails to specifically allege either an amount in controversy or that complete diversity of citizenship exists. See MidCap Media Fin., 929 F.3d at 313 ("To properly allege diversity jurisdiction under § 1332, the parties need to allege 'complete diversity.' That means 'all persons on one side of the controversy [must] be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.'" (quoting McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam))).
And her response to the show cause order does not advance a case for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Compare, e.g., Dkt. No. 7 at 2 ("I want all properties, assets any where on Earth or off the Earth that originated from or was focused on, infringed upon, viewed or resulted from anything of mine in anyone's hands or possession." (emphasis omitted)), with Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation, 943 F.3d at 1006; Ensor v. Does 1-15, No. A-19-CV-00625-LY, 2019 WL 4648486, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2019) ("To assert a prima facie claim of copyright infringement, a party must allege '(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.'" (quoting Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991))).
Chase has thus failed to show that the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. The Court should therefore dismiss this action without prejudice.
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will 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. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
DATED: January 8, 2020
/s/_________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE