IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SONYA L. CHAPMAN, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-1807-B

)

FIRST CONVENIENCE NATIONAL )

BANK, )

Defendant. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court filed

on January 4, 2006, this cause has been re-referred to the United States Magistrate Judge to

consider Plaintiff’s answers to the Magistrate Judge’s questionnaire, which were received on

November 30, 2005, but not docketed until December 19, 2005. The findings, conclusions and

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type of Case: This is an unspecified civil action filed pro se.

Parties: Plaintiff is a resident of Dallas, Texas. Defendant is First Convenience National

Bank. The Court has not issued process in this case, pending preliminary screening.

Statement of Case: Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in unlawful banking practices

beginning on September 29, 2004, including charging improper banking fees, refusing to pay

checks and other electronic payments, and ultimately closing her account. (Amended Complaint

at 1). She claims Defendant was reckless and negligent in handling her account. (Id.). She

requests monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id. at 1-2). 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01807-B Document 15 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 80
2

Findings and Conclusions: Before addressing the complaint, the court must first examine

the threshold question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. That is an issue of

paramount concern, and should be addressed, sua sponte if necessary, at the inception of any

federal action. System Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V Viktor Kurnatovsky, 242 F.3d 322, 324 (5th

Cir. 2001); Moody v. Empire Life Ins. Co., 849 F.2d 902, 904 (5th Cir. 1988). 

Unless otherwise provided by statute, federal court jurisdiction requires (1) a federal

question arising under the Constitution, a federal law or a treaty, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2)

complete diversity of citizenship between adverse parties and at least $75,000 in controversy, see

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are less than clear and precise. Even when

liberally construed in accordance with Plaintiffs’ pro se status, the complaint fails to allege a

federal question arising under the Constitution or federal law. The complaint, as supplemented

by the answers to the questionnaire, merely alleges that Plaintiff’s banking privileges, in

particular her over draft protection, were denied and that she was treated without regard to her

status as a consumer. (Answer to Question 1). 

Absent a federal question, complete diversity of citizenship between adverse parties and

at least $75,000 in controversy are required to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff cannot rely on diversity of jurisdiction. It is clear from the face of

the complaint and the civil cover sheet that Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Texas and that

Defendant is a Texas Bank. Moreover, it appears that the amount in controversy does not exceed

$7,000. (Amended Complaint at 1 and Answer to Question 2).

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01807-B Document 15 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 81
3

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction.

A copy of this recommendation shall be mailed to Plaintiff. 

Signed this 12th day of January, 2006.

____________________________________

WM. F. SANDERSON, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that

you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this

recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.

1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law accepted by the district court.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01807-B Document 15 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 82