Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_05-cv-01582/USCOURTS-alnd-5_05-cv-01582-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

INGRID HERWICK, and B. ROBERT )

STIER II, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action Number

) 5:05-cv-1582-UWC

H. WAYNE SMITH, )

SMITHBILT CONSTRUCTION, and )

GEORGE W. MILLER, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON THE COURT’S JURISDICTION

Pro se plaintiffs, Ingrid Herwick and Robert Stier, initiated this action on June

25, 2005, in response to an eviction action filed against them on June 20, 2005, in the

District Court of Morgan County, Alabama by Defendant Wayne Smith. The

plaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin the eviction proceeding against them and to grant

various other forms of relief. “Because a court is powerless to act beyond its grant

of subject matter jurisdiction, a court is obligated to raise whether it has subject

matter jurisdiction at any time during the litigation.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d

1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).

Here, the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to establish that their alleged right to relief

requires this Court to decide a substantial question of federal law, as is required in

order to invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section

FILED

 2005 Aug-23 PM 01:34

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:05-cv-01582-UWC Document 3 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

1331. Indeed, “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited

jurisdiction,..., and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party

asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377

(1994). In order to satisfy this burden, “the pleader must affirmatively allege facts

demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction and include ‘a short and plain statement

of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends.’” Taylor v. Appleton, 30

F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1994). 

The plaintiffs have asserted that this Court has jurisdiction under the Fair

Housing Act, National Housing Policy, and several Amendments to the US

Constitution (the Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth, respectively). However, mere

recitation of possible sources of federal jurisdiction without allegation of “facts

demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction” is insufficient to establish federal

jurisdiction. While the facts alleged in the seven counts listed in the complaint would

likely entitle the plaintiffs to some form of relief in some state court, they are

insufficient to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. 

First, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, provides a federal cause

of action for discrimination on the bases enumerated in Section 3604 of the Act in the

sale or rental of housing. In their complaint, the plaintiffs fail to allege any form of

discrimination prohibited by the Act in the rental of the property in question. The

plaintiffs, however, do allege claims generally pertaining to “fair” housing, but their

claims arise under state law. Disputes, as here, between landlords and tenants

concerning the alleged breach of lease agreements and the alleged breach of the

warranties of quiet enjoyment and habitability are generally governed by state law

and state tribunals, not federal law and federal tribunals. 

Second, the National Housing Policy, as the name would suggest, is merely a

Case 5:05-cv-01582-UWC Document 3 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Congressional declaration of national housing policy. There is thus no federal cause

of action arising under the provision cited by the plaintiffs. Even if there were a

federal cause of action, the complaint fails to establish a connection between the

single rental of property in question here and national housing policy. Next, there is

no government action specified to invoke the protections afforded under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments respectively. The complaint merely accuses the defendants,

none of whom are purported to be governmental actors, of various wrongs. Finally,

the Seventh Amendment pertains to the right to a trial by jury, and because there has

not been denial of a trial by jury, this Amendment would not be a source of

jurisdiction. 

Not only did the plaintiffs fail to establish federal question jurisdiction, but

they also fail to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The

complaint specifies that the plaintiffs are residents of Morgan County, Alabama and

that Defendant Wayne Smith is a resident of Morgan County, Alabama. The

complaint is silent as to the residency of the co-defendants. However, even if the codefendants were residents of different states, the complaint clearly establishes that

there is not complete diversity as is required to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction via

diversity of citizenship. 

Accordingly, by separate order, this action will be dismissed.

Done this 23rd day of August, 2005.

______________________________

 U.W. Clemon

 Chief United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01582-UWC Document 3 Filed 08/23/05 Page 3 of 3