IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

BASIL ABDUL RASHEED,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JUDE MARCHETTE, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-00129-RWSJBB

ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff Basil Abdul Rasheed’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation. Docket No. 16. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s objections 

are OVERRULED and the above-captioned case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, filed a complaint against Defendants Jude Marchette, Mary 

Marchette, and Jude Marchette, Jr. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff and all three Defendants are residents 

of Texas. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for discrimination, hate crimes, 

conspiracy, violation of Texas’s squatters law, destruction of property, criminal trespass, burglary, 

defamation, and other state law claims. See id. at 5, 7–10. Plaintiff also complains that the Federal 

Government and the State of Texas are feeding Defendants and wants Defendants’ behavior 

reported to the Social Security Administration and Human Services. See id. Plaintiff seeks punitive 

damages and injunctive relief, such as the return of all tools and equipment. Id. at 6. In a subsequent 

filing Plaintiff alleges Defendants burglarized Plaintiff’s business in 2005. Docket No. 7 at 1. 

Case 5:23-cv-00129-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 75
Page 2 of 6

Plaintiff also alleges vehicles were made inoperable and battery acid was poured over furniture 

and the carpet. Id.

When Plaintiff requested court-authorized service of process the Magistrate Judge 

reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and assessed whether the Court had jurisdiction. See Docket No. 

9.1 The Magistrate Judge explained to Plaintiff that federal courts have limited jurisdiction and 

that it was Plaintiff’s burden to establish that the Court has either federal or diversity jurisdiction. 

See generally id. The Magistrate Judge’s February 24, 2024 order explains that the asserted claims 

do not invoke federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 5–6. The Magistrate Judge further explained that 

Plaintiff had not properly invoked diversity jurisdiction because all the parties reside in Texarkana, 

Texas. Id. at 6. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Magistrate Judge nevertheless provided 

Plaintiff with twenty days to amend his complaint to establish that the Court has jurisdiction over 

non-frivolous claims. Id. at 7. 

On February 7, 2024 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Docket No. 11. The first five 

pages of the amended complaint do not appear to relate to the named Defendants in this case. Id. 

at 1–5.2 Plaintiff again complains that Defendants have been using his home and business for 19 

years, have stolen or destroyed Plaintiff’s property including his tools, equipment, lawn mowers, 

furniture, and other physical property. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants actions have caused 

him anxiety, depression, and mental distress and that he is entitled to money damages and the 

return of his property. Id. at 7. 

1 Plaintiff’s original complaint checked “U.S. Government Plaintiff” as the basis for jurisdiction. 

Docket No. 1 at 16. 

2 For example, Plaintiff complains that he was removed from the courthouse on February 2, 2024. 

Id. at 2. This complaint, however, has no relevance to his allegations against Defendants. 

Case 5:23-cv-00129-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 76
Page 3 of 6

The Magistrate Judge reviewed the amended complaint to determine whether it established 

that the Court has jurisdiction. Docket No. 13. Upon review of the amended complaint the 

Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff had not established either federal question or diversity 

jurisdiction. Id. at 6–8. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the above-captioned case be 

dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 8. The Magistrate Judge 

instructed Plaintiff on how to file objections and additionally instructed Plaintiff that this is a 

federal court and that his complaint and amended complaint only raise state law claims. See id. at 

8–9 (“Message to the pro se plaintiff”).

LEGAL STANDARDS

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). This means that the Court possesses “only that power authorized 

by [the] Constitution and statute. . . .” Id. “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited 

jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”

Id. (internal citations omitted). In this case that burden rests on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff may establish jurisdiction through the two basic types of jurisdiction: diversity

and federal question. Diversity jurisdiction requires (1) that “the matter in controversy exceed[ ] 

the sum or value of $75,000,” and (2) that the case be between “citizens of different states.” 28

U.S.C. § 1332. By contrast, federal question jurisdiction requires that the case arise “under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. State law claims typically 

do not confer federal-question jurisdiction—a federal question exists “only [in] those cases in 

which 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.” Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 538 F.3d 334, 337–38 (5th Cir. 2008).

Case 5:23-cv-00129-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 77
Page 4 of 6

The Court has an “affirmative duty to raise [ ] issues regarding subject matter jurisdiction, 

sua sponte, whenever a problem with subject matter jurisdiction is perceived.” See City of Sachse, 

Tex. v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 564 F. Supp. 2d 649, 653 (E.D. Tex. 2008) (citations omitted). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation. Docket No. 16. 

First, Plaintiff complains that because he did not receive the report until March 18, 2024,

he only had 48 hours to file his objections. Id. at 1–2.3 The report explained that within 14 days of 

service a party must serve and file written objections. Docket No. 13 was initially returned as 

undeliverable (Docket No. 14) so the Court resent the report via certified mail on March 13, 2024. 

Accordingly, the 14-day period began on the date of service–March 13, 2024—and Plaintiff had 

more than 48 hours to file his objections. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court waited 

14 days from Plaintiff’s date of receipt before reviewing Plaintiff’s objections. See Docket No. 15. 

More than 14 days have passed between Plaintiff’s receipt of the report but Plaintiff has not filed 

additional objections. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s first objection is without merit. 

Second, Plaintiff also objects on the basis that the Court has not yet ruled on his pending 

motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 10)4 and because he was removed from the courthouse 

when he was requesting copies. Docket No. 16 at 2–3. Plaintiff alleges that denial of access to the 

Court is a constitutional violation. Id. These are improper objections as they do not relate to the 

report itself. Neither of these objections address the report’s recommendation to dismiss for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction or the analysis performed therein. The Court does not need to 

3 Plaintiff’s objections also mention possible mail tampering. Id.

4 Parties do not have a legal right to counsel in civil cases, regardless of their legal sophistication. 

Hadd v. LSG-Sky Chefs, 272 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Case 5:23-cv-00129-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 78
Page 5 of 6

“conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature.” 

Baksic v. Ethicon Inc., 659 F. Supp. 3d 763, 767 (W.D. Tex. 2023). Here there is nothing in the 

report to review as to these issues because Plaintiff’s objections do not relate to the report’s factual 

or legal analysis.5 Accordingly, these objections are without merit because they do not establish 

jurisdiction for the claims asserted against the Defendants. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s objections reference Defendants twice. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants 

failed to timely appear even though he served the Complaint and summons. Docket No. 16 at 2. 

Plaintiff also asserts the following:

The Marchett[e]s relocated to (1) one of (12) twelve properties owned and worked. 

(19) nineteen years. Plaintiff’s tools. Equipment and materials. (469) years of 

slavery ancestors stolen. Kid-nap[p]ed. Billion died on the North West Passive! Air 

travels each year. (1) of (4) element as being seen. Texarkana Water!

Id. Plaintiff’s objections do not address the report’s conclusion that there is not subject matter 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, these objections are without merit. Plaintiff has not met his burden to 

show that this Court—a federal court— has the authority to hear his state law claims against 

Defendants.

The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s 

proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) (District Judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 

or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Upon such de 

novo review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the 

Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (Docket No. 16) are OVERRULED. It is further 

5

 Plaintiff also makes allegations concerning his son and government officials that the Court need 

not address because these allegations have no connection to Defendants. Docket No. 16 at 3–4. 

Case 5:23-cv-00129-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 04/19/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 79
Page 6 of 6

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 13) is ADOPTED as 

the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of April, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00129-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 04/19/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 80