Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00346/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00346-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene Knox
Defendant
Cleophus Young
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CLEOPHUS YOUNG, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv346-MHT

) (WO)

EUGENE KNOX, )

)

Defendant. )

O R D E R

On May 12, 2014, pro se plaintiff Cleophus Young filed this action against defendant

Eugene Knox. According to Young, Knox committed perjury to fraudulently collect life

insurance benefits.

Because federal courts are courts oflimited jurisdiction, it is a basic premise offederal

court practice that the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action

before it can act. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994);

Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). Thus, federal courts only

have the power to hear cases as authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United

States, see Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, and are required to inquire into their jurisdiction at

the earliest possible point in the proceeding. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d

405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). In addition, FED R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) requires that “[w]herever it

appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court shall dismiss the action.” This court

operates under an independent obligation to examine its own jurisdiction continues at each

stage of the proceedings, even if no party raises the jurisdictional issues and both parties are

Case 2:14-cv-00346-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 3
prepared to concede it. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990). “It is axiomatic

that a district court may inquire into the basis of its subject matter jurisdiction at any stage

of the proceedings.” See 13 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure

3522 (1975).

It does not appear from a review of the complaint that the plaintiff presents a federal

question to invoke this court’s federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although

Young attempts to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, no substantive rights are created

by Section 1983. It merely provides a remedy for deprivations of federal rights created

elsewhere. Wideman v. Shallowford Community Hospital, Inc., 826 F.2d 1030 (11 Cir. th

1987). To be successful on § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that he suffered a

deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the

United States and that the act or omission causing the deprivation was committed by a person

acting under color of state law. Id. It does not appear that defendant Knox is a person

“acting under color of state law.” 

In addition, it appears that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and all

the parties are from Alabama. Consequently, there does not appear to be diversity

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Consequently, on the face of the complaint, it does not

appear that this court has jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that on or before May 30, 2014, the plaintiff shall show cause why this

case should not be dismissed for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff is advised

that if he fails to respond to respond to this order with specificity, the court will treat

his failure to respond as an abandonment of the claims set forth in his complaint. The

Case 2:14-cv-00346-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 05/16/14 Page 2 of 3
plaintiff is further cautioned that if he fails to file a response in accordance with the

directives of this order, the court will recommend that this case be dismissed. 

Done this 16th day of May, 2014.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00346-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 05/16/14 Page 3 of 3