Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00012/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00012-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ellis Franklin
Plaintiff
Jemison & Mendelsohn
Defendant
Troy W. Massey
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELLIS FRANKLIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10cv12-MEF

)

TROY W. MASSEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER and RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Ellis Franklin, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis in this action (Doc. # 2). It is 

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. However, upon review of the complaint,

the court concludes that dismissal of this action prior to service of process is appropriate

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

Plaintiff brings claims against attorney Troy Massey and the law firm of Jemison &

Mendelsohn. He alleges that he hired Massey to represent him in a personal injury action

against Greyhound Bus Lines and that on May 2, 2006, at the Jemison & Mendelsohn office,

Massey settled plaintiff’s claim outside of plaintiff’s presence and without plaintiff’s consent. 

He further alleges:

1

 The statute provides, in pertinent part: “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the

court determines that . . . 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Case 2:10-cv-00012-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 4
Mr Troy Massey and his associates made a settlement with Greyhound Bus

Lines later. I Mr Franklin were not there, and no attorney can deny the rights

of a client of disagreement. Mr Franking state NO to Mr Troy Massey and his

associates. Mr. Troy informed Mr. Franklin if he did not sign. that he would

not represent him in court,

Misrepresentation, Harassing, Conspiracy, Fraud, Drama, dishonest. 

Discrimination Base on race, Disability Act. Retaliation

(Complaint, p. 2).

Despite plaintiff’s use of a pre-printed form complaint which is intended for alleging

a violation of constitutional rights,2

 and plaintiff’s allegation of “Discrimination Base on

race, Disability Act. Retaliation[,]” plaintiff’s factual allegations do not even arguably raise 

any claims under federal race or disability discrimination laws. Accordingly, the court

concludes that the allegations of the complaint do not support the exercise of federal question

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida,

414 U.S. 661, 666-67 (1974)(test of whether federal question jurisdiction exists is whether

the right claimed is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of [the

Supreme Court] or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal

controversy within the jurisdiction of the District Court, whatever may be the ultimate

resolution of the federal issues on the merits”); Cf. Riley v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 222 Fed.

Appx. 897 (11th Cir. 2007)(unpublished opinion)(“Although Riley listed some federal

2

 The pre-printed language on the form complaint includes paragraphs with the headings,

“Place of alleged violation of civil rights[,]” “Date of alleged violation of civil rights[,]” and “State

the facts on which you base your allegation that your constitutional rights have been violated[.]”

(Complaint, ¶¶ 3-5).

2

Case 2:10-cv-00012-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 4
statutes in the complaint’s preamble and again asserted that the district court had federal

question jurisdiction over her FDCPA, RESPA and TILA claims, her second amended

complaint did not contain such claims or other claims ‘arising under the Constitution, laws,

or treatises of the United States.’”). 

Additionally, plaintiff does not allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1332. He does not allege complete diversity of citizenship, and he lists

Montgomery, Alabama addresses for himself and both of the defendants. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1-

2). The court is unable to discern from the allegations of the complaint any basis for

exercising federal subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this action is due to be dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this action be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to file the Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge and to serve a copy on the parties to this action. The parties are DIRECTED to file

any objections to this Recommendation on or before January 25, 2010. Any objections filed

must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation objected

to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

3

Case 2:10-cv-00012-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 4
findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144,

1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

Done, this 12th day of January, 2010.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:10-cv-00012-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 4 of 4