IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 DALLAS DIVISION

SCOTT A. SAMFORD, #835644, ) 

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-1034-B

)

CYNTHIA SAMFORD, et al., ) 

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 court in

implementation thereof, this cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type of Case: This is a civil rights action brought by a state inmate pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

Parties: Plaintiff is presently confined at the Pack I Unit of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice – Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID) in Navasota, Texas. 

Defendant is Cynthia Samford, Plaintiff’s ex-wife. The court has not issued process in this case. 

However, on June 13, 2005, the court issued a questionnaire to Plaintiff who filed his answers on

June 24, 2005. 

Statement of Case: Plaintiff seeks to sue his ex-wife, for false information that she

provided in a victim impact statement, and for requesting that TDCJ-CID stop all out-going

correspondence to his sons. Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation for damage to his character,

adverse effect on eligibility for parole, and loss of time with his two sons. He also requests that

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01034-B Document 8 Filed 07/28/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 38
1 In answer to the magistrate judge’s questionnaire, Plaintiff confirms that he is not

seeking any damages or other relief against TDCJ-CID. (Answer to Questions 2 and 5).

2 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides, in relevant part: 

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or

usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to

be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

2

his right to correspond with his two sons be restored.1 

Findings and Conclusions: Before addressing Plaintiff’s claims, 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.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on the form to be used by prisoners in filing civil rights

actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 That section affords redress only for conduct committed

by a person acting under color of state law and does not ordinarily involve conduct of a private

citizen or corporation. Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475, 482 (5th Cir. 2004); Scott v.

Moore, 85 F.3d 230, 233 (5th Cir. 1996); Thibodeaux v. Bordelon, 740 F.2d 329, 332 (5th Cir.

1984). Defendant is a private citizen. As such her conduct is not cognizable under § 1983. 

Even when liberally construed in accordance with Plaintiff’s pro se status, the complaint

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01034-B Document 8 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 39
3

fails to allege a federal question arising under the Constitution or federal law. The complaint

merely complains about statements made by Defendant in a victim impact statement, and in a

request to TDCJ-CID regarding Plaintiff’s out-going mail to his sons.

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 that Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of the State Texas. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

complaint should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint for want of jurisdiction.

It is further recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on June 7, 2005, be

denied as moot.

A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.

Signed this 28th day of July, 2005.

____________________________________

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

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01034-B Document 8 Filed 07/28/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 40
4

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-01034-B Document 8 Filed 07/28/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 41