IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

NIKISHA PUGH, ET AL., § 

 § 

Plaintiffs, § 

§ 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-2477-X-BN 

§ 

TERRY PRICE, ET AL., § 

§ 

Defendants. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiffs, who claim that they started a non-profit organization to “fight crime 

and injustice,” allege that Defendants falsely accused them of kidnapping children, 

which caused Plaintiffs to file this pro se civil suit in federal court. Dkt. No. 3. 

United States District Judge Brantley Staff referred Plaintiffs’ complaint to 

the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. 

And, although Plaintiffs paid the $402 filing fee, 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 Plaintiffs 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) offers 

Case 3:22-cv-02477-X-BN Document 4 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 8
- 2 - 

them an opportunity to establish (if possible) that the Court does indeed have subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

Discussion 

“‘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)). 

Plaintiffs 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, 

Case 3:22-cv-02477-X-BN Document 4 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 9
- 3 - 

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); 

Jeanmarie v. United States, 242 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 2001))). 

And, if Plaintiffs do 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. 

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 

Case 3:22-cv-02477-X-BN Document 4 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 10
- 4 - 

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)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit has therefore held “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)). 

Under Section 1331, 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 

Case 3:22-cv-02477-X-BN Document 4 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 11
- 5 - 

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))). 

The “‘creation’ test ... accounts for the vast bulk of suits under federal law.” 

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

“a federal court [is also] able to hear claims recognized under state law 

that nonetheless turn on substantial questions of federal law, and thus 

justify resort to the experience, solicitude, and hope of uniformity that a 

federal forum offers on federal issues.” That is to say, “federal 

jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) 

necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable 

of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state 

balance approved by Congress.” 

Perez v. Se. SNF, L.L.C., No. 21-50399, 2022 WL 987187, at *3 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 

2022) (per curiam) (quoting Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 

545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005), then Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258). 

First, Plaintiffs allege that “all parties stay in different counties”: “Denton 

County[;] Dallas County[;] Tarrant County.” Dkt. No. 3. So, by alleging that all 

parties are Texans, Plaintiffs allege no basis to find that each plaintiff’s citizenship 

is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship, and there is no basis to find jurisdiction 

under Section 1332. Add to that, Plaintiffs fail to specify an amount in controversy. 

As to Section 1331, no facts alleged raise a substantial, disputed question of 

federal law. Nor do the well-pleaded allegations reflect that there is federal 

jurisdiction over a state law claim. 

Case 3:22-cv-02477-X-BN Document 4 Filed 12/08/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 12
- 6 - 

And, although Plaintiffs claim that Defendants “posted” “false accusations” “on 

several websites and media,” neither that conclusion nor a conclusory invocation of 

the internet in general satisfies the burden to establish, under Section 1331, that a 

suit falls within the Court’s limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Wylie v. Facebook, No. 4:19-

cv-58-O-BP, 2019 WL 5458872, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2019) (“Plaintiff has made a 

conclusory statement that he was defrauded over the internet, but he has not alleged 

facts that would support the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.”), rec. 

accepted, 2019 WL 5457073 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2019). 

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. 

Case 3:22-cv-02477-X-BN Document 4 Filed 12/08/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 13
- 7 - 

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

DATED: December 8, 2022 

_________________________________________ 

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02477-X-BN Document 4 Filed 12/08/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 14