Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20037/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20037-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AAAA Insurance Agency
Appellee
John Doe
Appellee
Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company
Appellee
Donald Topper
Appellant
Oscar Zambrano
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20037

Summary Calendar

DONALD TOPPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AAAA 

INSURANCE AGENCY; JOHN DOE; OSCAR ZAMBRANO, 

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-3697

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that the opinion previously filed in this case, Topper v. 

Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 14-20037, __ F. App’x __, 2015 WL 860791, 

is WITHDRAWN. The following opinion is substituted therefor:

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-20037 Document: 00512978151 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2015
No. 14-20037

Donald Topper, Texas prisoner #1800924, appeals from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). He contends that the district court incorrectly construed 

his complaint as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We review his claims de novo, 

using the same standard applicable to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 763 (5th Cir. 2014).

Topper’s complaint does not allege the violation of a federally guaranteed 

right or contend that the defendants acted under color of state law. See § 1983; 

Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657, 1661 (2012). Further, he does not invoke his 

federal civil rights or assert that he was denied due process. Rather, he asserts 

various tort and contract claims under state law against the defendants as 

private actors without alleging that they committed acts with the involvement 

or cooperation of the State. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir. 

1994). Thus, this court does not exercise federal question jurisdiction. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does this court exercise diversity jurisdiction because, 

despite Topper alleging damages exceeding $75,000, he does not allege the 

citizenship of the named defendants according to 28 U.S.C. §1332.1 See Dos 

Santos v. Belmere Ltd., 516 F. App’x 401, 402–03 (5th Cir. 2013) (“Although we 

‘liberally construe’ the filings of pro se litigants and ‘apply less stringent 

standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel,’ 

the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the court has 

1 Out of the four defendants, Topper only listed the mailing addresses for AAAA 

Insurance Agency and Oscar Zambrano, which are both located in Texas, and the mailing 

address for John Doe, located in Ohio. See Topper Complaint at 1–2. However, Topper failed 

to allege the proper state of citizenship for either party. For instance, AAAA Insurance 

Agency, likely a corporation, is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and the state 

where its principal place of business is located. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Topper’s complaint 

makes no mention of the citizenship of any of the defendants pursuant to § 1332(c).

2

 

Case: 14-20037 Document: 00512978151 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2015
No. 14-20037

jurisdiction based on the complaint and evidence.” (quoting Grant v. Cuellar, 

59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995))).

Accordingly, although the district court erred in dismissing Topper’s 

complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1983, we AFFIRM the district 

court’s dismissal but for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We note, however, 

that the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should have been 

without prejudice, as a district court is unable to reach the merits of claims 

over which it has no subject matter jurisdiction. See Cahanin v. Tobias, 5 F.3d 

1494 (5th Cir. 1993) (unpublished); see also Hix v. United States Army Corps. 

of Eng’rs, 155 F. App’x 121, 129 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Because the district court did 

not reach the merits of Appellants’ claims, and did not have jurisdiction to do 

so, it was incorrect to dismiss those claims with prejudice.”); Davis v. United 

States, 961 F.2d 53, 57 (5th Cir. 1991) (same). We, therefore, modify the 

judgment accordingly.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is modified to reflect dismissal 

without prejudice; and the dismissal, as modified, is AFFIRMED.2 

2 With respect to Topper’s request for a refund of overpayment of district court filing 

fees, Topper should seek any such refund from the district court in the first instance.

3

 

Case: 14-20037 Document: 00512978151 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2015