Opinion
A-24-CV-117-DII-ML
03-08-2024
ADAM KEITH CORENFIELD, Plaintiff, v. CHRIS MARLOW, CLABE MARLOW, MARLOW GROUP, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MARK LANE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before the court are Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1) and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2). The court previously granted Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 5) and now submits its review and recommendation on the merits of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
The Magistrate Court submits this Report and Recommendation to the United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
As stated below, this court has made a § 1915(e) review of the claims made in this complaint and is recommending Plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Therefore, service upon Defendants should be withheld pending the District Court's review of the recommendations made in this Report. If the District Court declines to adopt the recommendations, then service should be issued at that time upon Defendants.
I. Review of the Merits of the Claim
A. Factual Background
Adam Keith Corenfield is currently detained in the Travis County Jail. Dkt. 2 at 3. He brings suit against his former apartment property managers and management group. He states he lived in the apartment without water or gas and eventually the apartment was boarded up and everything he owned was in the trash or stolen. He seeks compensation for his possessions and for emotional suffering.
B. Standard of Review
Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court is required by statute to review the Complaint. Section 1915(e)(2) provides in relevant part that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is frivolous, if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, (1989); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28.
Pro se complaints are liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 20-21 (1972). However, Pro se status does not offer a plaintiff an “impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
C. Discussion
Generally, a federal court has jurisdiction over a case in two circumstances. The first, known as federal question jurisdiction, exists if a case “arises under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The second circumstance in which a federal court has jurisdiction is frequently termed diversity jurisdiction. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting out the elements required for jurisdiction based on “diversity of citizenship”). “Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 only exists where the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000.” White v. FCI USA, Inc., 319 F.3d 672, 674675 (5th Cir. 2003).
When the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a case, the case is properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Hooks v. Landmark Indus., Inc., 797 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir. 2015). “The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, see FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006).
Corenfield does not assert a federal claim against Defendants. Any claim he may have, based on his alleged facts, would arise under state law not the Constitution or federal laws. However, Corenfield also does not plead facts that would support diversity jurisdiction. He and the individual Defendants appear to reside in Texas-he met the individual Defendants in the apartment office every morning. Based on the Complaint, the court does not have either federal question or diversity jurisdiction over any claims Corenfield has against the named Defendants. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II. Recommendation
The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The referral of this case to the Magistrate Court should now be canceled.
III. Warning
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battles v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).