1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHAUNCIL-DANIELLE WILLIAMS, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-02388-N (BT)

§

DALLAS COUNTY, et al., §

 Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Chauncil-Danielle Williams filed this pro se civil action 

against Dallas County and others asserting claims for defamation, abuse of 

process, forgery, identity theft, and receiving stolen property. The Court 

granted Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but withheld issuing 

process pending judicial screening. As part of that screening, the Court sua 

sponte considered whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Because it 

appears subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court should dismiss this 

action without prejudice. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that 

power authorized by the Constitution and other federal laws. Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (Scalia, J.) (citations 

omitted). And courts have an independent duty to examine their subject 

matter jurisdiction and to dismiss any case in which jurisdiction is lacking. 

See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999); accord

Case 3:22-cv-02388-N-BT Document 9 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 32
2

McDonal v. Abbott Lab'ys, 408 F.3d 177, 182 n.5 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[A]ny 

federal court may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”); see also

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.”).

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over two types of 

cases: (1) cases that arise under federal law (“federal question jurisdiction”), 

28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds 

$ 75,000, and there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties 

(“diversity jurisdiction”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. 

v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019). “The party seeking to invoke the 

jurisdiction of the federal court has the burden of proving that jurisdiction 

exists.” Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Hillman, 796 F.2d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 

1986); see also St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 

1253 (5th Cir. 1998).

When determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists, it 

“must be determined by reference to the ‘well pleaded complaint.’” Merrell 

Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986) (citation 

omitted). This means that the complaint must “raise issues of federal law 

sufficient to support federal question jurisdiction.” Rodriquez v. Pacificare 

of Tex., Inc., 980 F.2d 1014, 1017 (5th Cir. 1993). Generally, there is no 

federal jurisdiction when the plaintiff pleads only a state law cause of action. 

Bernhard v. Whitney Nat'l Bank, 523 F.3d 546, 551 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Case 3:22-cv-02388-N-BT Document 9 Filed 10/31/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 33
3

Further, “[c]omplete diversity requires that all persons on one side of 

the controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other 

side.” SGK Props., LLC v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass'n, 881 F.3d 933, 939 

(5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Settlement Funding, 

LLC v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing 

McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004) (per 

curiam))). “In determining diversity jurisdiction, the state where a person 

establishes his domicile serves a dual function as his state of citizenship. A 

person’s state of domicile presumptively continues unless rebutted with 

sufficient evidence of change. Domicile requires the demonstration of two 

factors: residence and the intention to remain.” Preston v. Tenet 

Healthsystem Mem’l Med. Center, Inc., 485 F.3d 793, 797-98 (5th Cir. 2007) 

(internal cites omitted). Evidence of a person’s place of residence, however, 

is prima facie proof of his domicile. Id. at 799 (citing Stine v. Moore, 213 

F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954)); see also Martin v. Lafon Nursing Facility of 

the Holy Family, Inc., 548 F.Supp.2d 268, 273 n.22 (E.D. La. 2008). 

Here, Williams suggests that federal question jurisdiction exists. 

Compl. 2 (ECF No. 3). Specifically, she claims that her case arises under the 

“Constitution and the laws of the United States.” Id. However, Williams’s 

claims are all state law causes of action. 

Williams also asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists. Id. at 11, 12. But 

she has not shown that there is a compete diversity of citizenship between 

Case 3:22-cv-02388-N-BT Document 9 Filed 10/31/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 34
4

the parties. Although Williams claims that she is a “Citizen of Heaven,” id.

at 12, it appears she is domiciled in Addison, Texas. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) It 

further appears that Defendant Vince Griffin is domiciled in Garland, Texas; 

Defendant Bill Gipson is domiciled in Mesquite, Texas; and Defendant Ben 

Admcik is domiciled in Dallas, Texas. Compl. 11 (ECF No. 3). 

It thus appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. And, 

therefore, the Court should DISMISS this case without prejudice. 

SO RECOMMENDED.

October 31, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

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

this report 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). 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 report 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).

Case 3:22-cv-02388-N-BT Document 9 Filed 10/31/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 35