Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00164/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Emanuel Mathews
Defendant
Willie C. McDowell
Defendant
Barbara C. Sears
Plaintiff
Calvin S. Sears
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CALVIN S. SEARS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 2:09CV164-WKW-CSC

) (WO)

EMANUEL MATHEWS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Upon consideration of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and is hereby GRANTED.

On March 2, 2009, the pro se plaintiffs, Calvin S. Sears and Barbara C. Sears, filed

this action against defendants Willie C. McDowell and Emanuel Mathews. The Sears assert

that the defendants have failed to repair a substantial mold and mildew problem, a leaky roof,

and cracking lead paint or install insulation in their rental home. Upon consideration of the

pleadings and evidentiary materials in this case, the court concludes that this case is due to

be dismissed prior to service of process.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 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.

Case 2:09-cv-00164-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 03/06/09 Page 1 of 4
2

Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). Every federal court

operates under an independent obligation to ensure it is presented with the kind of concrete

controversy upon which its constitutional grant of authority is based. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City

of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990). 

FED R.CIV.P. 12(h)(3) requires that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Every federal court operates

under an independent obligation to ensure it is presented with the kind of concrete

controversy upon which its constitutional grant of authority is based. This obligation on the

court to examine its own jurisdiction continues at each stage of the proceedings, even if no

party raises the jurisdictional issues and both parties are 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).

A review of the complaint demonstrates that the plaintiff does not assert any federal

claim, and the court is unaware of any federal claim concerning the failure of a landlord to

remediate mold in rental property. Thus, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction

over this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

A federal district court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a civil action in

which only state law claims are alleged if the civil action arises under the federal court’s

diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The diversity statute confers jurisdiction

on the federal courts in civil actions “between citizens of different states,” in which the

Case 2:09-cv-00164-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 03/06/09 Page 2 of 4
3

jurisdictional amount is met. Id. To satisfy diversity, not only must a plaintiff be a citizen

of a state other than the state of which one defendant is a citizen, but also, under the rule of

“complete diversity,” no plaintiff may share the same state citizenship with any defendant.

See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806). The complaint alleges that the

plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Alabama as well as defendant McDowell. Therefore,

there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In short, this court lacks

jurisdiction over all of the plaintiffs’ claims and this case is due to be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).

It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the on or before

March 19, 2009. 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. The parties are advised that this

Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

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

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein

Case 2:09-cv-00164-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 03/06/09 Page 3 of 4
4

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 6th day of March, 2009.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00164-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 03/06/09 Page 4 of 4