Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00599/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00599-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacquelyn Chestang
Defendant
Fred Turner
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FRED TURNER, *

*

 Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00599-KD-B

*

JACQUELYN CHESTANG, *

*

 Defendant. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court on review. 1 In an Order 

dated February 24, 2015 (Doc. 6), Plaintiff, who is proceeding

pro se, was directed to file an amended complaint that set forth 

the basis for federal jurisdiction. In response, Plaintiff 

filed a document containing various disjointed factual 

allegations, along with a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, and a 

Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien. (Doc. 9 at 2-5). 

Upon careful review, it is recommended that this action be 

dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction. 

I. Background

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint, 

which was later amended. (Docs. 1, 3). As best the Court can 

discern from Plaintiff’s various pleadings, Plaintiff alleges 

 

1 This action 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)(4).

Case 1:14-cv-00599-KD-B Document 10 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 6
2

that Jacquelyn Chestang trespassed onto his property, and set up 

“homestead,” that she forged his name on a real estate purchase 

agreement, and that as a result of her actions, a closing for 

the sale of his property was cancelled, and he lost $45,000. 

(Docs. 1, 3). Plaintiff also asserts claims against Chestang 

for $14,400 in unpaid rent, defamation, mental anguish, and 

emotional distress. 

In an Order dated February 24, 2015 (Doc. 6), the Court 

observed that Plaintiff’s pleadings did not set forth the basis 

for federal jurisdiction. Thus, Plaintiff was directed to file, 

by March 11, 2015, an amended complaint, which contained a short 

and plain statement of the grounds for federal jurisdiction. 2

Fed.R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). As noted supra, in response to the 

Court’s order, Plaintiff filed a response, which contained

disjointed factual assertions, none of which relate to the 

grounds for federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff also included 

information regarding a federal tax lien. (Doc. 9 at 1-4).

II. Discussion

A federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, which 

is authorized by the Constitution or Congress to hear only 

 

2 Plaintiff was expressly advised that in order to establish 

federal subject matter jurisdiction, he was required to show the 

existence of either diversity jurisdiction(pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332) or federal question jurisdiction (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331). See Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (llth Cir. 

1994)(“Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over 

diversity actions and cases raising a federal question.”)

Case 1:14-cv-00599-KD-B Document 10 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 6
3

certain types of actions. Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Allapattah 

Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 2616-17 

(2005). Accordingly, in reviewing an action, the court must 

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 671, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1945 (2009) 

(noting that “subject matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or 

waived and should be considered when fairly in doubt.”). “A 

federal court not only has the power but also the obligation at 

any time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility 

that jurisdiction does not exist arises.” Fitzgerald v. Seaboard 

Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985); see also

Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261-62 (11th

Cir. 2000) (raising sua sponte on appeal the issue of whether 

the case involved a sufficient amount in controversy for 

diversity jurisdiction). In addition, the inquiry into whether 

a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction should be done 

at the “earliest possible stage in the proceedings.” University 

of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 

(11th Cir. 1999). “[O]nce 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, 228 F.3d at 1261.

When considering a pro se litigant’s allegations, a court 

gives them a liberal construction holding them to a more lenient 

Case 1:14-cv-00599-KD-B Document 10 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 6
4

standard than those of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 

519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652, 654 (1972). 

However, a court does not have “license . . . to rewrite an 

otherwise deficient pleading [by a pro se litigant] in order to 

sustain an action.” GJR Invs. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 

F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 

868 (2009); see Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 

2010) (observing Iqbal’s overruling of GJR Investments’ 

heightened pleading standard). And, the plaintiff has the sole 

responsibility of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.

Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). To do 

so, the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate 

the existence of federal jurisdiction and include a short and 

plain statement of the grounds on which the court has 

jurisdiction over the action. Kirkland v. Masonry, Inc. v. 

Comm’r, 614 F.2d 532, 533 (5th Cir. 1980).3

When a court considers dismissal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction, it accepts the “well-pled facts as true,” however;

a court “is not required to accept plaintiff’s legal 

conclusions.” Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 

 

3 The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 

1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopted as binding 

precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered 

prior to October 1, 1981.

Case 1:14-cv-00599-KD-B Document 10 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 6
5

(11th Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.

Ct. at 1949-50); Bell Atlantic Corp., v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). 

In this case, the Court has provided Plaintiff with an 

opportunity to amend his complaint so as to set forth the basis 

for federal jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff has failed 

to demonstrate the existence of federal jurisdiction with 

respect to his claims. Accordingly, this action is due to be 

dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. 

III. Conclusion.

Because Plaintiff has been afforded an opportunity to 

establish grounds for federal jurisdiction, and has failed to do 

so, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed 

without prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction. 

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 

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. 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00599-KD-B Document 10 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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 the 8th day of April, 2015.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00599-KD-B Document 10 Filed 04/09/15 Page 6 of 6