United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION TO
ANN RENO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
filed his Complaint (ECF 3) on August 15, 2019 proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis. The
undersigned recommends Plaintiff's complaint be
is incarcerated at the Formby Unit in Plainview, Texas. (ECF
3 at 1, 3). Plaintiff brings this action against State Farm,
for which Plaintiff lists an Atlanta, Georgia address, and
Ashley Tyler, for which plaintiff lists a Pampa, Texas
address. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff claims Ashley Tyler
caused a collision that totaled his car. (Id.).
Following the incident, Plaintiff claims State Farm resolved
his claim with respect to his car, and offered him $6, 500
with respect to the medical bills he incurred after the
incident. (Id.). Plaintiff claims this amount is
insufficient to cover the $8, 539.36 worth of medical bills
he incurred, lost wages, and pain and suffering.
otherwise provided by statute, federal court jurisdiction
requires: (1) a federal question arising under the
Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty, see 18
U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) complete diversity of citizenship
between adverse parties, and the matter in controversy
exceeds $75, 000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal
courts “must presume that a suit lies outside this
limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal
forum.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d
912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). The Court must liberally construe
pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
when construed liberally, Plaintiffs complaint fails to
allege facts supporting federal question or diversity
jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not refer to any federal cause
of action by name, and the complaint's facts do not
resemble those underlying a federal cause of action. Further,
it appears both Plaintiff and Defendant Ashley Tyler are
citizens of Texas. (ECF 3 at 4). Thus, Plaintiff has failed
to establish diversity jurisdiction. See Corfield v.
Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2003)
(“A district court cannot exercise diversity
jurisdiction if one of the plaintiffs shares the same state
citizenship as any one of the defendants.”).
above reasons, the Court recommends Plaintiffs complaint (ECF
3) be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of
these Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation to each party
by the most efficient means available.
OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation. In the event parties wish to object, they are
hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is
fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by
the “entered” date directly above the signature
line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R Civ. P.
5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by electronic means, Fed.R.Civ.P.
5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before
the fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation
is filed as indicated by the “entered” date.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled
“Objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the
written objections with the United States District Clerk and
serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A
party's failure to timely file written objections shall
bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error,
from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings, legal conclusions, and recommendation set forth by
the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district court.
See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded
by statute on other ...