Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02904/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02904-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

FlLi.~iJ 

Unit.ed States C,ourt of Appealf 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tent

b Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DARREL LEE McCABE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

DECO 4 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2904 

v. (D.C. No. CV 88-0636-JP) 

TIME. McKINNEY; JOYCE CAMPBELL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

(D. New Mexico) 

Before SETH, HOLLOWAY and McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 1 This cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Darrel Lee McCabe appeals from the district judge's order 

dismissing without prejudice his diversity libel action for 

failure to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement of 28 

* 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

1 

McCabe stated in his brief that he did not request oral 

argument. Appellant's Brief at 5. 

Appellate Case: 88-2904 Document: 010110149255 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 1 
U.S.C. § 1332. After reviewing the complaint and the documents 

that McCabe submitted in support of jurisdiction, the judge 

concluded that the allegations were insufficient to establish a 

good faith claim for the then-minimum amount, $10,000. We affirm. 

I 

While incarcerated in the State of Washington in 1988, McCabe 

initiated this libel action in forma pauperis and prose in the 

District of New Mexico. McCabe's complaint, filed June 1, 1988, 

alleged that the defendants had, with "wilful malice, gross 

negligence, wanton misconduct, and recklessly," knowingly 

published a false report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

which they knew "would tend to subject plaintiff to hatred, 

distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace." I R. Doc. 1. 

Although the complaint did not allege the factual basis for the 

allegations, subsequent filings show McCabe claims that the 

Sheriff of Fremont County, Wyoming, and an employee supplied the 

FBI with erroneous crimin~l history information about him in 1987. 

See IR. Doc. 10. McCabe demanded a trial by jury. The prayer in 

McCabe's complaint sought $50,000 in compensatory damages and 

$150,000 in punitive damages. IR. Doc. 1. The district judge 

directed that the complaint be filed, but not served. 

IR. Doc. 4. 

The judge entered an order on June 27, 1988, dismissing the 

action sua sponte on the ' ground that venue was not proper in the 

District of New Mexico. McCabe filed a motion to reconsider the 

ruling on venue, which the judge granted. IR. Doc. 8. However, 

in the same order the judge dismissed the complaint without 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2904 Document: 010110149255 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 2 
, prejudice, this time on a determination made sua sponte of the 

insufficiency of the jurisdictional amount allegations in McCabe's 

complaint. 

Relying on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Cor_p., 298 

U.S. 178 (1936), the judge reasoned that a "district court may 

exercise discretion in determining whether the amount alleged to 

support diversity jurisdiction is alleged in good faith and is 

substantially involved." I R. Doc. 8. The judge held that the 

"conclusory allegations" in McCabe's complaint were "insufficient 

to establish the jurisdictional amount," and dismissed the 

complaint without prejudice 

jurisdiction. Id. 

for lack of subject matter 

McCabe responded by filing a motion asking the judge to 

reconsider the order dismissing the action. With the motion, 

McCabe filed a supporting Memorandum Brief and attached to it 

exhibits consisting, in part, of copies of his correspondence with 

the Freemont County sheriff's office concerning the record of his 

criminal history. The judge denied the motion to reconsider, 

explaining: 

Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion and 

accompanying memorandum, the Court remains unconvinced 

that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. While 

the pleadings referred to above set forth in somewhat 

greater detail the basis upon which Plaintiff claims an 

injury, they do not provide further support for 

Plaintiff's claim that his injury resulted in damages 

that can be expected to meet the jurisdictional amount. 

IR. Doc. 11. 

McCabe appeals from the judge's order dismissing the action. 

McCabe asks us to reverse the judge's ruling with instructions to 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2904 Document: 010110149255 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 3 
serve the complaint and summons. 

II 

On appeal, McCabe argues that the district judge applied the 

wrong standard in determining the insufficiency of the 

jurisdictional amount of the claim asserted by him. He says that 

the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if made in good faith, 

and that absolute certainty is not required, citing St. Paul 

Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938), 

inter alia. Further, McCabe contends that the district court 

failed to recognize the proper rule concerning a defamation claim 

where there can be no predetermined sum certain respecting 

damages. Moreover, McCabe says that the district court failed to 

consider the rule that failure to recover the jurisdictional 

amount does not defeat jurisdiction, again citing St. Paul Mercury 

Indemnity Co. We must disagree, finding no error in the trial 

judge's assessment of McCabe's claim with respect to the 

jurisdictional amount and the proper standards to apply. 

When McCabe's complaint was filed on June 1, 1988, a 

plaintiff seeking to invoke a federal court's diversity 

jurisdiction was required to allege properly that the "matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a) (1982), amended !2y 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a) (1988). In language varying just slightly from 

the statute, McCabe's complaint alleged: "The matter in 

controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of 

ten thousand dollars." IR. Doc. 1. Unless questioned, standard 

language such as that in the jurisdictional allegation in McCabe's 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2904 Document: 010110149255 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 4 
complaint is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a 

plaintiff allege the minimum jurisdictional amount necessary in a 

diversity action. Fehling v. Cantonwine, 522 F.2d 604, 605 (10th 

Cir. 1975). 

Even where neither party has questioned the existence of 

federal jurisdiction, the court has a responsibility to determine 

independently whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, 

including the required jurisdictional amount in controversy. See, 

~, Ross v. Inter-Ocean Ins. Co., 693 F.2d 659, 660-61 (7th Cir. 

1982) (court of appeals determined jurisdictional amount was 

lacking even though parties and district judge had not questioned 

such amount; case remanded with directions to vacate judgment and 

remand to state court). "Either the court on its own motion or 

the opposing party may contest plaintiff's statement of the 

jurisdictional amount." 14A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal 

Practice and Procedure § 3702, at 17-18 (1985). Once the 

jurisdictional amount was challenged here by the court's order, in 

connection with the further showing of the jurisdictional amount 

attempted by McCabe, the burden of demonstrating jurisdiction 

rested on McCabe. Gibson v. Jeffers, 478 F.2d 216, 221 (10th Cir. 

1973) . 

McCabe attempted to support the jurisdictional allegation 

through his second motion to reconsider, to which he attached his 

Memorandum Brief with copies of correspondence with the Freemont 

County Sheriff's office and the FBI concerning his FBI 

identification record. In ruling on the motion to reconsider, the 

judge stated that he had considered both "Plaintiff's motion and 

accompanying memorandum." I R. Doc. 11. We believe the trial 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-2904 Document: 010110149255 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 5 
judge in essence treated McCabe's motion to reconsider, as well as 

his attached memorandum and its exhibits, as an amendment to the 

complaint and as McCabe's proof of jurisdictional amount. Because 

McCabe has raised no objection to the trial judge's method of 

inquiring into the facts underlying the jurisdictional allegation, 

we express no opinion on the correctness of the judge's procedure 

leading to his order of dismissal. Therefore, we consider only 

whether McCabe satisfied his burden of showing that the 

jurisdictional amount is involved. 

The basic test for determining whether a matter in 

controversy satisfies the jurisdictional amount requirement is 

whether the jurisdictional amount allegation is apparently made in 

good faith. If the court concludes that it is not, then dismissal 

may be proper. The rule is that: 

unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed 

by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently 

made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty 

that the claim is really for less than the 

jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal. 

St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 303 U.S. at 288-89 (footnotes 

omitted). 

In his Memorandum Brief, McCabe explained that he was 

attempting to "justify the allegations and satisfy the legal 

certainty standard of good faith." IR. Doc. 10 at 3. Of all of 

the documents that McCabe attached to his Memorandum Brief, only 

one provides possible support for a libel allegation. The exhibit 

is a copy of a message from an employee in the Freemont County 

Sheriff's office to the FBI, dated May 18, 1987. The substantive 

part of the message stated: "Be advised according to the criminal 

6 

Appellate Case: 88-2904 Document: 010110149255 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 6 
• 

file on this subject it advised subj. was sentenced to $104 bond 

and disposition advises, floated. Hope this will help!" I R. 

Doc. 10, Ex. E. 

order. 2 

The exhibit is attached as Appendix A to this 

The meaning of the message is unclear because it appears to 

be written in a shorthand form of expression used by the local law 

enforcement personnel. The message does not state the nature of 

the charge underlying the arrest. McCabe did not attempt to place 

the message in context by, for example, explaining in what respect 

he alleges the information in the message was false. That McCabe 

was sentenced to "$104 bond" does not necessarily indicate 

McCabe's involvement in a serious crime. In addition, the 

complaint, memorandum and its exhibits do not furnish any 

additional details to support McCabe's claim of $200,000 in 

compensatory and punitive damages. 

Because all the instruments and their averments do not 

provide a basis for a good faith claim of damages exceeding 

$10,000, we feel the judge did not err in concluding that the 

conclusory allegations were insufficient to establish the 

requisite jurisdictional amount. We are satisfied to a legal 

certainty that the matter in controversy in McCabe's action did 

2 

We note that Exhibit I to McCabe's Memorandum Brief in 

support of his motion to reconsider the dismissal for lack of 

jurisdictional amount does state: "4. Records indicate you were 

booked into jail on August 17, 1963, and released on August 26, 

1963." This statement, however, was not shown to have been made 

otherwise than in this exhibit, a January 20, 1988, letter from 

the Sheriff responding to a request from McCabe himself. Thus we 

see no substance to this exhibit as showing a basis for any 

damages. 

7 

Appellate Case: 88-2904 Document: 010110149255 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 7 
not satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement. See Gibson v. 

Jeffers, 478 F.2d at 220-21 (affirming dismissal of action 

because, even after amendments, general allegations in complaint 

were legally insufficient to support federal jurisdiction); see 

also. e.g., Christensen v. Northwest Airlines. Inc., 633 F.2d 529, 

530-31 (9th Cir. 1980); Gill v. Allstate Ins. Co., 458 F.2d 577, 

578-79 (6th Cir. 1972); Nelson v. Keefer, 451 F.2d 289, 296-98 

(3d Cir. 1971). As the court said in Christensen, we are 

satisfied that "[i]t is clear to a legal certainty that 

appellant's unliquidated tort claim could not sustain a judgment 

of over $10,000." 633 F.2d at 531. 

The order dismissing the complaint and action 

prejudice is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

William J. Holloway, Jr. 

United States Circuit Judge 

8 

without 

Appellate Case: 88-2904 Document: 010110149255 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 8 
( ', .. 

-------------- --------

305-3-1 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

10th & PA. AVE. NW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20537-9700 

DATE MAY 18 1987 

RE: DARREL LEE MCCABE 

FBI NUMBER 100328 E 

ARREST NUMBER 1160971 

FREMONT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 

TIM McklNNEY, SHERIFF 

LANDER, WYOMING 82520 

307-332-5611 

Be advised according the criminal file on thi~ subject it advised subj. was 

sentenced to $104 bond and disposition advises, floated. 

Hope this will help! 

SIGNED :yce Campbell/Warrants 

SIGNED 

\ 

\ 

APPENDIX 11A11 

Appellate Case: 88-2904 Document: 010110149255 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 9