UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2444

JEFFREY C. SKEENS, as Administrator of the Estate of Grover 

Skeens; CAROLYN D. DAVIS, as Administratrix of the Estate 

of Charles T. Davis; OWEN T. DAVIS, as Administrator of the 

Estate of Cory Davis,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

and

GROVER SKEENS; CHARLES T. DAVIS; CORY DAVIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, INCORPORATED; ALPHA APPALACHIA 

HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Massey Energy Company,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (5:13-cv-20595; 5:12-cv-06854)

Submitted: July 31, 2014 Decided: September 17, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with 

instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

J. Michael Ranson, RANSON LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West 

Virginia; G. Patrick Jacobs, JACOBS LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellants. A.L. Emch, Gretchen M. Callas, 

JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey C. Skeens, Carolyn D. Davis, and Owen T. Davis 

(“Plaintiffs”), as administrators of the estates of Grover 

Skeens, Charles T. Davis, and Cory Davis, respectively, seek to 

appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice 

their amended complaint against Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., 

and Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc., (“Defendants”) in Case No. 

5:12-cv-06854 and dismissing with prejudice their complaint 

against Defendants in Case No. 5:13-cv-20595. We dismiss

Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s order in Case No. 

5:12-cv-06854 as interlocutory. We vacate the district court’s 

order in Case No. 5:13-cv-20595 and remand with instructions to 

dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

With respect to Case No. 5:12-cv-06854, we note that

we have already once declined to consider Plaintiffs’ appeal of 

the district court’s dismissal of their case without prejudice. 

See Skeens v. Alpha Natural Res., No. 13-1727 (4th Cir. ECF No. 

41). We discern no differences in the posture of the case that 

would require us to disturb our prior decision. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. Khanjee Holding, Inc., 655 F.3d 699, 705 (7th 

Cir. 2011) (finding “no significant differences” in the legal 

landscape that would warrant re-examination of prior 

jurisdictional ruling). The district court’s dismissal in this 
4

case remains an interlocutory order that is not subject to 

appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 

392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we once 

again dismiss the appeal of the district court’s order in Case 

No. 5:12-cv-06854.

Turning to Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s 

order in Case No. 5:13-cv-20595, “[a]s a court of limited 

jurisdiction, we are obligated to satisfy ourself of our 

jurisdiction as well as that of the district court.” Choice 

Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Shiv Hospitality, L.L.C., 491 F.3d 171, 

175 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 

524 U.S. 381, 389 (1998). Federal jurisdiction may lie either 

on the basis of diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2012), or the 

existence of a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012). 

Diversity jurisdiction exists when complete diversity of 

citizenship exists among the parties and the amount in 

controversy is greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and 

costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (stating 

that corporation is deemed a citizen of state in which it is 

incorporated and state in which it has principal place of 

business). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the existence 

of subject matter jurisdiction. Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. Cnty. 

Comm’rs of Carroll Cnty., Md., 523 F.3d 453, 459 (4th Cir. 

2008). 
5

We conclude that Plaintiffs failed to bear their 

burden of establishing complete diversity: although the amended 

complaint establishes the citizenship of Plaintiffs, it 

indicates only the states in which Defendants are incorporated, 

neglecting to include also the states where Defendants have 

their principal place of business. Consequently, the district 

court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

 Moreover, “[g]iven the court’s lack of jurisdiction 

over the case, any . . . holdings based on consideration of and 

conclusions on the merits were beyond the power of the district 

court.” S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Assoc., Inc. v. 

OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 n.4 (4th Cir. 

2013). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order in 

Case No. 5:13-cv-20595 and remand with instructions to dismiss

the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See

id. at 185 (“A dismissal for . . . [a] defect in subject matter 

jurisdiction[] must be one without prejudice, because a court 

that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose 

of a claim on the merits.”).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
6

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART, AND

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS