IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

BILLIE ANN MADISON, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-919-X-BN 

§ 

PARKLAND MAIN MEMORIAL § 

HOSPITAL, § 

§ 

Defendant. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Billie Ann Madison, providing an address in Dallas, Texas, filed a pro 

se civil complaint against Defendant Parkland Main Memorial Hospital. See Dkt. No. 

3. United States District Judge Brantley Starr referred Madison’s lawsuit to the 

undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management 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 Madison 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 Madison to establish to the Court (if possible) that its does indeed 

have subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case 3:22-cv-00919-X-BN Document 6 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 20
- 2 - 

 “‘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)). 

Madison 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.” 

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

Case 3:22-cv-00919-X-BN Document 6 Filed 04/27/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 21
- 3 - 

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. 

Starting with 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 

“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 

Case 3:22-cv-00919-X-BN Document 6 Filed 04/27/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 22
- 4 - 

(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)). 

Madison has not affirmatively and distinctly alleged diversity jurisdiction. 

Most obviously, Madison provides an address in Dallas, Texas, and the only 

defendant that she has sued “is an acute care, teaching hospital operated by the 

Dallas County Hospital District” and “is Dallas County’s only public hospital,” 

“responsible for providing medical care to indigent citizens of Dallas County.” Dall. 

Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Shalala, No. 3:94-cv-173-G, 1995 WL 767353, at *1 (N.D. Tex. 

Oct. 20, 1995). As such, insofar as Madison, who shoulders the burden to show the 

Court that it possesses jurisdiction, relies on Section 1332, the Court must infer that 

both sides are Texas citizens, and that there is not diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., 

Case 3:22-cv-00919-X-BN Document 6 Filed 04/27/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 23
- 5 - 

Hamilton v. Parkland Mem’l Hosp., No. 3:14-cv-4271-D, 2015 WL 12750447 (N.D. 

Tex. Jan. 16, 2015) (“Plaintiff lists his address as Dallas, Texas, and Defendant 

Parkland Hospital is located in Dallas, Texas. Plaintiff therefore does not allege the 

diversity of citizenship necessary to proceed under § 1332. See Stafford v. Mobil Oil 

Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that ‘[t]he burden of proving that 

complete diversity exists rests upon the party who seeks to invoke the court’s 

diversity jurisdiction.’).”), rec. adopted, 2015 WL 12748323 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2015). 

Next, under Section 1331, federal question jurisdiction “exists when ‘a wellpleaded 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 Hot-Hed 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.’” (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). 

And “[t]he applicable test for determining jurisdiction on the face of the 

pleadings is not whether the plaintiffs could actually recover, but whether the federal 

claim alleged is so patently without merit as to justify the district court’s dismissal 

for want of jurisdiction.” Suthoff v. Yazoo Cnty. Indus. Dev. Corp., 637 F.2d 337, 340 

(5th Cir. Unit A Feb. 1981) (citing Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Grp., Inc., 

Case 3:22-cv-00919-X-BN Document 6 Filed 04/27/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 24
- 6 - 

438 U.S. 59 (1978)). Put another way, “[s]ome claims are ‘so insubstantial, 

implausible, ... or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal 

controversy.’” Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Louisiana, 943 F.3d 1004, 1007 

(5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Oneida Cnty., 414 U.S. 661, 

666 (1974)). So “a complaint that alleges the existence of a frivolous or insubstantial 

federal question is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction in a federal court.” Raymon 

v. Alvord Indep. Sch. Dist., 639 F.2d 257, 257 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981) (citing 

Olivares v. Martin, 555 F.2d 1192, 1195 (5th Cir. 1977); Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 

528, 538-39 (1974)); see also Southpark Square Ltd. v. City of Jackson, Miss., 565 F.2d 

338, 342 (5th Cir. 1977) (a claim “must be more than frivolous to support federal 

question jurisdiction”). 

Madison has not alleged a substantial federal question because the facts 

alleged – including that in May 2006, “Pueblo State [ ] hospital strapping, belt buckle, 

and tied down”; “The mafia hindered and complained to Rodney Avery and Betty Jean 

Avery”; “Westley Snipes became hurt working at Parkland”; “Abagel shot herself and 

shited on the King of Scotland”; and “So they took me to court in Manhattan New 

York said I murdered a ho” – are “so patently without merit as to justify ... dismissal 

for want of jurisdiction.” Suthoff, 637 F.2d at 340. 

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 

Case 3:22-cv-00919-X-BN Document 6 Filed 04/27/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 25
- 7 - 

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 27, 2022 

 _________________________________________ 

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00919-X-BN Document 6 Filed 04/27/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 26