IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

RECEE MAE REED, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-818-B-BN 

§ 

R. REED, ET AL., § 

§ 

Defendants. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Recee Mae Reed, providing an address in Dallas, Texas, filed a pro se

civil complaint against individuals, including “sons/associated siblings,” alleging that 

she is the victim of identity theft. See Dkt. No. 3. 

United States District Judge Jane J. Boyle referred Reed’s lawsuit to the 

undersigned United States magistrate judge for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) 

and a standing order of reference. 

And, after reviewing the complaint, the undersigned questions whether there 

is subject matter jurisdiction and, given the circumstances of this case, enters these 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that the Court should 

dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

These findings and conclusions provide Reed notice as to the jurisdictional 

deficiencies. And the ability to file objections to the undersigned’s recommendation 

that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (further explained below) affords 

an opportunity for Reed to establish to the Court (if possible) that its does indeed 

Case 3:22-cv-00818-B-BN Document 5 Filed 04/14/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 12
- 2 - 

have subject matter jurisdiction. 

 “‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute.’” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) 

(quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)); see 

also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212 (2007) (“Within constitutional bounds, 

Congress decides what cases the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider.”); 

Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (“Federal courts 

are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent jurisdiction conferred by statute, lack 

the power to adjudicate claims.”). 

They must therefore “presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction, 

and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the 

federal forum.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Correspondingly, all federal courts have an independent duty to examine their own 

subject matter jurisdiction. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583-

84 (1999) (“Subject-matter limitations ... keep the federal courts within the bounds 

the Constitution and Congress have prescribed. Accordingly, subject-matter 

delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest 

level.” (citations omitted)). 

Reed chose to file this lawsuit in federal court and, by doing so, undertook the 

burden to establish federal jurisdiction. See Butler v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 762 

F. App’x 193, 194 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (“[A]ssertions [that] are conclusory [ ] 

are insufficient to support [an] attempt to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.” 

Case 3:22-cv-00818-B-BN Document 5 Filed 04/14/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 13
- 3 - 

(citing Evans v. Dillard Univ., 672 F. App’x 505, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2017) (per cuiam); 

Jeanmarie v. United States, 242 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 2001))). If she does not, this 

lawsuit must be dismissed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at 

any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 

Because federal jurisdiction is not assumed, “the basis upon which jurisdiction 

depends must be alleged affirmatively and distinctly and cannot be established 

argumentatively or by mere inference.” Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N.A., 841 F.2d 

1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Ill. Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 

636 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1983)); see also MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 

929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction, 

parties must make ‘clear, distinct, and precise affirmative jurisdictional allegations’ 

in their pleadings.” (quoting Getty Oil, 841 F.2d at 1259)). 

Under their limited jurisdiction, federal courts generally may only hear a case 

if it involves a question of federal law or where diversity of citizenship exists between 

the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 

Federal question jurisdiction “exists when ‘a well-pleaded complaint 

establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s 

right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal 

law.’” Borden v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Franchise 

Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)); see also In re HotHed Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2007) (“A federal question exists ‘if there appears 

on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law.’” 

Case 3:22-cv-00818-B-BN Document 5 Filed 04/14/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 14
- 4 - 

(quoting Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 

1995))). “[T]his ‘creation’ test ... accounts for the vast bulk of suits under federal law.” 

Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257 (citation omitted). 

Reed asserts that she has been the victim of identity theft. But such allegations 

alone do not support jurisdiction under Section 1331. See, e.g., Razzi v. Nimler, No. 

5:14-cv-447-Oc-22PRL, 2014 WL 5038337, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2014) (“To the 

extent that Plaintiff attempts to state a claim for identity theft, he fails to identify a 

basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. The federal identity theft statute, the Identity Theft 

and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, 18 U.S.C. § 1028, is criminal in nature and 

provides no civil cause of action or civil remedy. Smith v. Mutual Sav. Life Ins., 3:14-

CV-96-RS-CJK, 2014 WL 2991091, at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 2, 2014) (citing Garay v. U.S. 

Bancorp, 303 F. Supp. 2d 299, 302-03 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (dismissing identity theft claim 

because 18 U.S.C. § 1028 provides no private cause of action)); see also Vasile v. Dean 

Witter Reynolds, Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 465, 477 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (‘It is also a general 

precept of criminal law that unless the statute specifically authorizes a private right 

of action, none exists.’).” (footnote omitted)). 

In sum, Reed alleges no facts reflecting that this lawsuit involves a substantial 

question of federal law, such as by alleging facts to show the violation of a federal 

statute that provides for a private right of action. 

Turning to diversity, in cases invoking jurisdiction under Section 1332, each 

plaintiff’s citizenship must be diverse from each defendant’s citizenship, and the 

amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (b). This amount 

Case 3:22-cv-00818-B-BN Document 5 Filed 04/14/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 15
- 5 - 

“is determined by the amount of damages or the value of the property that is the 

subject of the action.” Celestine v. TransWood, Inc., 467 F. App’x 317, 319 (5th Cir. 

2012) (per curiam) (citing Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 

347 (1977)). 

And, “[f]or diversity purposes, state citizenship is synonymous with domicile. 

A change in domicile requires: ‘(1) physical presence at the new location and (2) an 

intention to remain there indefinitely.’” Dos Santos v. Belmere Ltd. P’ship, 516 F. 

App’x 401, 403 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also Preston v. 

Tenet Healthsystem Mem’l Med. Ctr., 485 F.3d 793, 797-98 (5th Cir. 2007) (“In 

determining diversity jurisdiction, the state where someone establishes his domicile 

serves a dual function as his state of citizenship.... Domicile requires the 

demonstration of two factors: residence and the intention to remain.” (citing Stine v. 

Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954))). 

“The basis for diversity jurisdiction must be ‘distinctly and affirmatively 

alleged.’” Dos Santos, 516 F. App’x at 403 (quoting Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 

F.3d 386, 397 (5th Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Fifth Circuit “has stated that a ‘failure to adequately allege the basis for diversity 

jurisdiction mandates dismissal.’” Id. (quoting Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 

803, 805 (5th Cir. 1991)). 

Reed has not affirmatively and distinctly alleged diversity jurisdiction. Most 

obviously, Reed fails to allege the citizenships of the various defendants she names. 

She further fails to specify an amount in controversy. 

Case 3:22-cv-00818-B-BN Document 5 Filed 04/14/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 16
- 6 - 

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections 

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). 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 magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, 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. Failure 

to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or 

adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

DATED: April 14, 2022 

 _________________________________________ 

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00818-B-BN Document 5 Filed 04/14/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 17