Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_15-cv-00238/USCOURTS-alsd-2_15-cv-00238-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOE BEARD, JR., :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-0238-CG-M

THEODIS DELLA GREEN, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed a self-styled complaint and a Motion to Proceed Without 

Prepayment of Fees. (Docs. 1, 2). Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees has been referred to the 

undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(1). Local Rule 72.2(c)(1) 

provides for the automatic referral of a non-dispositive 

pretrial matter, such as Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without 

Prepayment of Fees, to a Magistrate Judge. The consideration of 

this Motion requires the Magistrate Judge to screen Plaintiff’s 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Troville v. Venz, 

303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying § 1915(e) to nonprisoner actions).1

 After screening the present action, it is 

 1

 Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides:

Case 2:15-cv-00238-CG-M Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 9
2

recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state 

a claim upon which can be granted. 

I. Complaint. (Doc. 1). 

Plaintiff filed a brief handwritten complaint, essentially 

consisting of one paragraph, naming Theodis Della Green as the 

sole Defendant. (Doc. 1). The Defendant’s address is given as 

156 Dedrick Street, Bessemer, Alabama 35020. Plaintiff 

complains that his late sister, Ovetta Beard, had an insurance 

policy, which he has been told has his name on it, but Defendant 

Green will not let him see the policy. For relief, Plaintiff 

asks the Court to take action on it.

II. Analysis.

A. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction.

 

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any 

portion thereof, that may have been paid, 

the court shall dismiss the case at any time 

if the court determines that --

(A) the allegation of poverty is 

untrue; or

(B) 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.

Case 2:15-cv-00238-CG-M Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 9
3

It is incumbent on a plaintiff in a federal action to set 

forth in his complaint the basis for the federal court’s subject 

matter jurisdiction. FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(1) (requiring a complaint 

to contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds upon 

which the court's jurisdiction depends”); see Taylor v. Appleton,

30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir.1994) (the facts demonstrating the 

existence of jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged). Id. 

This jurisdictional statement must reflect that the court has 

subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship or 

federal question. Id. (“In 28 U.S.C. § 1331-32. . . , Congress 

granted federal courts jurisdiction over diversity actions and 

cases raising a federal question.”). Because a federal court’s 

jurisdiction is limited, “once a court determines that there has 

been no [jurisdictional] grant that covers a particular case, 

the court’s sole remaining act is to dismiss the case for lack 

of jurisdiction.” Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 

1255, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2000). 

Because Plaintiff did not identify a basis for the Court’s 

jurisdiction, the Court will examine the two sources on which 

its jurisdiction is based. A complaint based on diversity of

citizenship jurisdiction must reflect that “the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs, and is between -- citizens of different 

Case 2:15-cv-00238-CG-M Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 Page 3 of 9
4

States. . . . “ 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “Federal diversity 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires ‘complete diversity’ 

- the citizenship of every plaintiff must be diverse from the 

citizenship of every defendant.” Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 

1321 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). That is, diversity jurisdiction 

exists only when “there is no plaintiff and no defendant who are 

citizens of the same State.” Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. 

Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388, 118 S.Ct. 2047, 2052, 141 L.Ed.2d 

364 (1998) (diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is destroyed 

by the mere presence of one non-diverse defendant).

In the present action, it appears that Plaintiff is a 

resident of Alabama and Defendant Green is a resident of Alabama. 

(Doc. 1). Thus, Defendant Green and Plaintiff appear not to be 

diverse, and thereby the Court lacks diversity of citizenship 

jurisdiction over this action. Furthermore, the Complaint does 

not reflect that this controversy satisfied the jurisdictional 

amount since a damages amount was not specified. Dart Cherokee 

Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, __U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 547, 553, 190

L.Ed.2d 547 (2014) (“When a plaintiff invokes federal-court 

jurisdiction, the plaintiff's amount-in-controversy allegation

is accepted if made in good faith.”). 

B. Federal-Question Jurisdiction.

Case 2:15-cv-00238-CG-M Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 Page 4 of 9
5

“Absent diversity of citizenship, a plaintiff must present 

a ‘substantial’ federal question in order to invoke the district 

court's jurisdiction.” Wyke v. Polk County School Bd., 129 F.3d 

560, 566 (11th Cir. 1997). Under federal-question jurisdiction, 

district courts are given “original jurisdiction of all civil 

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “[A] case arises under 

federal law when federal law creates the cause of action 

asserted.” Gunn v. Minton, ___U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064, 

185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013). “Under the longstanding well-pleaded 

complaint rule, . . . , a suit arises under federal law only 

when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows 

that it is based upon [federal law].” Vaden v. Discover Bank,

556 U.S. 49, 60, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009) 

(quotation marks omitted and brackets in original). However, a 

court’s subject matter jurisdiction does not extend to a cause 

of action that is not valid, as compared to one that is arguable. 

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 

118 S.Ct. 1003, 1010, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). 

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and appears not to 

be an attorney, the Court will liberally construe his 

allegations. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 

595-596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). The Court, however, does not 

Case 2:15-cv-00238-CG-M Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 Page 5 of 9
6

have “license . . . to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading 

[by a pro se litigant] in order to sustain an action[.]” GJR 

Investments v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 

(11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662 (2009). 

In pleading a complaint in federal court, Rule 8(a)(2) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint 

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 

929 (2007). This statement must contain factual content that 

allows the Court to reasonably conclude that the Plaintiff’s 

claim is facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The factual 

allegations must be sufficient “to raise a right to relief above 

the speculative level[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 

at 1965. Even though detailed factual allegations are not 

required, Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 127 

S.Ct. at 1949. Moreover, it will not suffice to plead merely 

“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action.“ Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 

S.Ct. at 1965.

Case 2:15-cv-00238-CG-M Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 Page 6 of 9
7

In the action at hand, Plaintiff did not identify a statute 

that he claims is violated or which authorizes him to file this 

action. Nonetheless, the Court examined case law and statutory 

law to determine if federal law provides a cause of action 

consistent with the present allegations. The Court was unable

to find such a cause of action based on the few facts alleged.

Many facts that would be important to stating a claim, or 

for the Court to merely understand the nature of Plaintiff’s 

claim, were not pled. The Court was not informed if Plaintiff 

is the beneficiary of the insurance policy, what relation 

Defendant Green is to the deceased, if Defendant Green is a 

beneficiary of the insurance policy, what is the nature of the 

insurance policy, if the insurance policy was offered by an 

employer’s plan (29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq.), from and through 

whom the deceased bought the insurance policy, what happened to 

the insurance proceeds, when did the events surrounding the 

claim occur, when did the deceased die, and whether an action 

was filed in state court, its result, and the date of the 

result. Information of this type is necessary for the Court to 

discern the nature of Plaintiff’s claim. Moreover, one of the 

questions raised by the Complaint in its present state is why 

was it filed in this Court and not in state court. 

Case 2:15-cv-00238-CG-M Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 Page 7 of 9
8

Considering the scant, fragmented facts alleged by 

Plaintiff and the overwhelming absence of pertinent facts, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged a plausible claim. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. at 1966. That is, based on 

the present allegations, it is merely speculative that Plaintiff 

could have a cause of action that arises under federal law, as 

he has not pled it. In light of this, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. See Barnett v. Bailey, 956 F.2d 1036, 1041-42 (11th

Cir. 1992) (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 

(1948)(“[j]urisdiction . . . is not defeated . . . by the 

possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of 

action on which petitioner could actually recover”)).

III. Conclusion.

Based upon the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that 

this action be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who 

objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within 

fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file 

Case 2:15-cv-00238-CG-M Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 Page 8 of 9
9

specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. 

The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, 

“the failure to object limits the scope of [] appellate review 

to plain error review of the magistrate judge’s factual 

findings.” Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 

2013). 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 report 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.

DONE this 11th day of June, 2015. 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00238-CG-M Document 3 Filed 06/11/15 Page 9 of 9