1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

DEMICHAEL LADALE MIMS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00519-JCB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff DeMichael Mims initiated this action, proceeding pro se, on October 24, 2023. 

(Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. No. 2.) 

The court, having reviewed the allegations, finds that it has no basis for federal jurisdiction over 

the alleged claims because Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts plausibly invoking grounds for the 

court’s jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION

In his complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendant Wells Fargo Bank for claims of breach of 

contract and breach of fiduciary duty. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on May 30, 2023, June 

12, 2023, June 27, 2023, and October 2, 2023, he sent letters to the CFO of Wells Fargo Bank 

instructing the bank to apply balance to his account. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo 

Bank breached its fiduciary duty by failing to follow the instructions in his letters and by failing 

to respond to his letters. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that Wells Fargo Bank closed his account 

without authorization. Id. For relief, Plaintiff requests that Wells Fargo Bank reopen his account 

and “enforce the law.” Id. at 5. 

Case 6:23-cv-00519-JCB-JDL Document 4 Filed 10/30/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 36
2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that “[i]f the court determines at any 

time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 

12(h)(3). Federal jurisdiction may be established through either federal question jurisdiction or 

diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331–32. Federal question jurisdiction may be established in 

civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331. Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts invoking the violation of the U.S. Constitution, 

federal law, or treaty to which the United States is a party. Rather, Plaintiff’s allegations raise only 

claims of an alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty resulting from the handling of 

his bank account. (See Doc. No. 1, at 4.) These claims, construed liberally, do not invoke any 

federal question. 

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction may alternatively be established based on diversity 

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires that: (1) no defendant is a citizen 

of the same state as any plaintiff; and that (2) the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. Here, 

Plaintiff is alleged to be a citizen of Texas and Defendant is alleged to be a citizen of California. 

(Doc. No. 1, at 3.) However, Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege the requisite amount in 

controversy. Indeed, Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief in reopening his account. (Doc. No. 1, at 

5.) Further, Plaintiff does not allege any facts to suggest that the amount of controversy would be 

greater than $75,000 in this case. Plaintiff’s attached account balances indicate amounts owed of 

$770.45 and $827.18. (Doc. No. 1-1, at 13, 18.) Construing these alleged facts liberally, the court 

cannot infer that the requisite amount in controversy is met. Accordingly, the court lacks 

jurisdiction over these claims, and they should be dismissed without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

Case 6:23-cv-00519-JCB-JDL Document 4 Filed 10/30/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 37
3

For these reasons, the court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s claims. As such, the court must dismiss the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). It is therefore 

RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings and 

recommendations contained in the report and recommendation. A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report and 

recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party from de 

novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except 

on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 

F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of October, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00519-JCB-JDL Document 4 Filed 10/30/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 38