Opinion
1:23-CV-1464-RP-ML
03-18-2024
SHEREEN JORDAN, Plaintiff, v. ERIC WILLIAM LAW FIRM OFFICE, Defendant.
THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER ON IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS
MARK LANE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
Before the court is Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. #2). Because Plaintiff is requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis, this court must review and make a recommendation on the merits of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The court has reviewed Plaintiff's financial affidavit and determined Plaintiff is indigent and should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's request for in forma pauperis status. The Clerk of the Court shall file the complaint without payment of fees or costs or giving security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This indigent status is granted subject to a later determination the action should be dismissed if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is found frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff is further advised, although Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may, in its discretion, impose costs of court at the conclusion of this lawsuit, as in other cases. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994).
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 Defendant 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 Defendant.
II. 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).
III. Review of the Merits of the Claim
Plaintiff Shereen Jordan attempts to sue Defendant Eric William Law Firm Ofice. Dkt. 1. Jordan alleges a claim for breach of contract and seeks a refund of $5,000, “moral damages,” transfer of her Hays County, Texas case to federal court in Austin, and “all the workers in [Eric William's law firm's office] of[f] the case,” and an additional $76,000 in damages. Id.
Jordan alleges that attorney Eric William “sent [Jordan] an email asking [Jordan] what” time she needed for a rescheduled trial. Id. at 2. She contends “[a]ll [] legal workers know that rescheduling or continuance for a trial needs an affidavit and issuance for [rescheduling] as Tex.R.Civ.P. 251.” Id. at 1-2. The Complaint goes on to allege that Eric William and his firm did not provide Jordan the service she desired. Id. at 2.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Sanders v. Boeing Co., No. 20-10882, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 23088, at *4 (5th Cir. 2021). They are empowered to hear only those cases that are within the constitutional grant of judicial power, and that have been entrusted to them by a jurisdictional grant enacted by Congress. Id. Where, as here, a plaintiff brings a purely state-law claim-breach of contract-a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over that claim if citizenship is diverse among the parties (that is, if the parties are citizens of different states) and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As the party invoking a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing diversity of citizenship. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010). United States District Courts have the responsibility to consider the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte if it is not raised by the parties and to dismiss any action if such jurisdiction is lacking. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).
Because Jordan is a resident of Hays County, Texas, Dkt. 1-2 at 1, and because Jordan alleges Defendant Eric William Law Firm Office is in Austin, Texas, Dkt. 1 at 1, the parties are citizens of the same state and there is no diversity of citizenship. Because there is no diversity of citizenship, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IV. Order and Recommendations
The Magistrate Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. #2). The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's cause of action (Dkt. 1) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The referral of this case to the Magistrate Court should now be canceled.
V. 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 Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).