ORDER − Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

KAZIM OLADOTUN OYENUGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

OMOYELE SOWORE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-00389-ALMCAN

ORDER FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT

On May 1, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Kazim Oladotun Oyenuga (“Plaintiff”) filed his original

complaint [Dkt. 1]. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Dkt. 4], which 

the Court has denied [Dkt. 5]. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Defendants engaged in libel and 

conspiracy to commit libel, which has harmed his professional reputation and business [Dkt. 1 at 

4-5]. Plaintiff also states that a related lawsuit is pending in state court in the 471st District Court 

of Collin County, Texas, Case No. 471-02866-2022 [Dkt. 1 at 2]. Regarding the state court case, 

Plaintiff states there are “two partial dismissal[s] of a defendant, one was appealed” and that the 

“present defendants” named in this suit “were non suited” [Dkt. 1 at 2]. Thus, it appears the claims 

sought to be asserted before this Court may already be pending before or are being adjudicated by 

a state court. For relief, Plaintiff primarily seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and an 

injunction against Defendants [Dkt. 1 at 5]. Further, Plaintiff’s civil cover sheet alleges that both 

federal question and diversity jurisdiction exist over his claims [Dkt. 1-1]. Following review of 

the live pleading, this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over any claims asserted is unclear, as is 

the status of any such claims in the underlying state court litigation.

Case 4:23-cv-00389-ALM-AGD Document 6 Filed 05/03/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 18
ORDER − Page 2

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over those cases arising under federal law. 

U.S. Const. Art. III § 2, cl. 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction 

over cases where complete diversity of citizenship exists between Plaintiff and all Defendants, and 

the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify any question of federal law that gives 

rise to his claim(s), nor does it allege the requirements for jurisdiction based on diversity. 

Regarding diversity jurisdiction, the Complaint alleges Plaintiff is a resident of Texas, and that at 

least one Defendant—Sahara Reporters Media Group Inc.—is a New York corporation, and that 

Defendants Olufemi Oluseun Dominic and Ayokunle James Gbadebo are each an “individual 

resident in Texas” [Dkt. 1 at 2]. No state of citizenship is alleged for Defendant Omoyele Sowore 

or for Defendant “Saharareporters.com.” Again, Plaintiff identified both federal question 

jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction as a “basis for jurisdiction” on his civil cover sheet, but at 

present, Plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficient to show the requirements for either federal 

question or diversity jurisdiction are satisfied. 

The complaint also lacks sufficient detail regarding the state court proceedings referenced 

in the complaint. Plaintiff’s statements regarding the case in Collin County suggest that it remains 

pending and has been adjudicated, at least as to some of the same Defendants named. He also 

references a state court appeal, but no information is provided regarding that appeal. Federal courts 

are courts of limited jurisdiction and must have statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a 

claim. Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Pursuant to the abstention doctrine set forth by the Supreme Court in Younger, a federal court is 

prohibited under certain circumstances from interfering with a pending state-court proceeding. 

Jasper v. Hardin Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 1:11-CV-408, 2012 WL 4480713, at *9 (E.D. Tex. 

Case 4:23-cv-00389-ALM-AGD Document 6 Filed 05/03/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 19
ORDER − Page 3

Sept. 5, 2012) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)), report and recommendation 

adopted, No. 1:11-CV-408, 2012 WL 4472261 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2012). “Under the Younger 

abstention doctrine, federal courts should generally decline to exercise jurisdiction when: ‘(1) the 

federal proceeding would interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the state has an 

important interest in regulating the subject matter of the claim; and (3) the plaintiff has ‘an 

adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges.’” Dillenberg v. 

Watts, No. 4:20-CV-458-SDJ, 2021 WL 1084766, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2021) (quoting Bice 

v. La. Pub. Def. Bd., 677 F.3d 712, 716 (5th Cir. 2012)).

These concerns could potentially be cured by the filing of an Amended Complaint. Courts 

often afford pro se plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaints. See, e.g., Smith v. City of 

Princeton, No. 4:17-CV-85-ALM-CAN, 2017 WL 9285413, at *3 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2017), report 

and recommendation adopted, No. 4:17-CV-85, 2017 WL 3033397 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2017). 

The Court will permit Plaintiff such an opportunity to clarify both the Court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction and the status of any state court proceedings related to each Defendant and claim(s)

asserted in this cause. Plaintiff should include every issue he wishes to raise in the amended 

complaint, as an amended complaint entirely supersedes and takes the place of an earlier 

complaint. Clark v. Tarrant Cnty., 798 F.2d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff is further instructed 

that the amended complaint must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Eastern 

District of Texas Local Rules. Accordingly,

It is therefore ORDERED that pro se Plaintiff Kazim Oladotun Oyenuga shall file an

amended complaint, no later than Friday, June 2, 2023, at 5:00 p.m., setting forth:

Case 4:23-cv-00389-ALM-AGD Document 6 Filed 05/03/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 20
ORDER − Page 4

(1) The basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit, specifically 

addressing whether there is federal question and/or diversity jurisdiction and the 

potential Younger implications, as set forth herein;

(2) The current status of Plaintiff’s pending case in the 471st District Court of Collin 

County, Texas, Case No. 471-02866-2022, including a statement regarding the 

disposition of each specific Defendant; and

(3) The status of any state court appeal, including identifying the parties, the case number, 

court, and date of filing.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in a recommendation of dismissal under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 4:23-cv-00389-ALM-AGD Document 6 Filed 05/03/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 21