1

Local Rule 72.2(c)(1) provides for the automatic referral of

non-dispositive pretrial matters, such as Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2), to a Magistrate

Judge for hearing and determination. By filing this Motion,

Plaintiff subjects his Complaint to the screening provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which mandates the dismissal of a

complaint if a court determines a complaint is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, or sues a person for money damages who is immune from

such relief. During the screening of the Complaint, the

undersigned has determined that this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction has not been invoked. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROGER LYNN MEADOWS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0670-WS-M

A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, :

et al.,

:

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a handwritten

Complaint and Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Docs.

1, 2 & 9). This action has been referred to the undersigned for

appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local

Rule 72.2(c)(1).1 It is recommended that this action be

dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. Nature of Proceedings.

A. Present Action.

Case 1:05-cv-00670-WS-M Document 11 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 8
2

Plaintiff’s Complaint is on the form provided in the Pro Se

Litigant Guide as an example of a complaint’s format (Doc. 1). 

Plaintiff used the form for his Complaint by handwriting his

information in its available spaces. In the space identified for

“grounds for jurisdiction,” Plaintiff states “job related

injury.” And in the space where Plaintiff was asked to state his

legal claim or his reason for filing suit and to include the

statute under which he was filing suit, Plaintiff provides “job

related injury told to work with unsafe product asbestis [sic].” 

Attached to the Complaint are two pages from Plaintiff’s action

filed in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Ohio (hereinafter “Ohio federal court”) against 93

Defendants, which are also identified as this action’s

Defendants.

In subsequent filings (Docs. 4 - 6), Plaintiff requests an

out-of-court settlement and a settlement conference as he has

withdrawn from the law firm representing him in his asbestos

action and has received his attorney’s file (Doc. 5). The Court

has denied Plaintiff’s requests (Doc. 7).

B. Prior Actions and Other Jurisdictions’ Actions.

In the past, Plaintiff filed pro se actions with this Court

in which he sought compensation for his exposure to asbestos. In

the Meadows v. Seafarers International Union, CA 00-0844-CB-S

Case 1:05-cv-00670-WS-M Document 11 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 8
 2

This Court takes judicial notice of its records. ITT

Rayonier, Inc. v. United States, 651 F.2d 343, 345 n.2 (5th Cir.

July 20, 1981).

3

(S.D. Ala. Nov. 20, 2000),2

 Plaintiff’s action was dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction after he had been given an

opportunity to amend his complaint for the purpose of

establishing subject matter jurisdiction. In the amended

complaint, like the present Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that

this Court’s jurisdiction was based on “personal injury.” 

Plaintiff maintained that his seaman career ended when he

contracted asbestosis and that he was represented by Maritime Law

in a lawsuit pending in the Northern District of Ohio, No.

196CV13874, against 104 defendants concerning his asbestosis. 

Plaintiff alleged that in the Ohio action he sued the

shipping company, Maritime Overseas (presently O.S.G.), and his

union for ordering him to work with asbestos on their ships and,

in particular, when he was told to remove it from the kitchen. 

Plaintiff claimed that he has lost $375,000 in wages and that

Maritime Law, i.e., Mr. Marsden, was not suing these two

defendants.

To determine the status of the Ohio action, the Court

contacted the Ohio federal court and received a copy of the

Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in the maritime asbestos

cases on May 2, 1996, which was attached to the Report and

Recommendation as Exhibit A. The opinion stated that all

Case 1:05-cv-00670-WS-M Document 11 Filed 03/01/06 Page 3 of 8
4

asbestos actions nationwide were in multi-district litigation

(Ex. A, at 2), with jurisdiction over the actions having been

transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania (hereinafter “Pennsylvania federal

court”) (Ex. A, at 10).

The maritime actions that were filed in the Ohio federal

court were specifically addressed by the Pennsylvania federal

court in its opinion and attendant order (Ex. A, at 1, 3, 14-16). 

The Pennsylvania federal court administratively dismissed the

maritime asbestos actions and tolled the statute of limitations

(Ex. A, at 14). The Pennsylvania federal court retains

jurisdiction over the maritime asbestos actions, and will

reinstate a specific action upon a plaintiff making a showing of

an asbestos-related personal injury supported by the requisite

evidence (Ex. A, at 15). Plaintiff’s Ohio action is a maritime

asbestos action. 

The filing of the present action caused the Court to contact

the Ohio federal court, where the docket is kept for Plaintiff’s

action. The Court was informed that Plaintiff’s asbestos action

remains inactive and that the jurisdiction for his action rests

with the Pennsylvania federal court handling the multi-district

litigation for asbestos actions. The Court then verified this

Case 1:05-cv-00670-WS-M Document 11 Filed 03/01/06 Page 4 of 8
 3

In addition to the Seafarers action, Plaintiff has filed two

other actions in this Court: Meadows v. Maritime Overseas, CA 98-

0089-P-S (S.D. Ala. May 8, 1998), was dismissed pursuant 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff’s asbestosis claim was

pending in a multi-district action in Ohio; and Meadows v. A-C

Product Liability Trust, 03-0750-CG-M (S.D. Ala. Dec. 4, 2003),

was voluntarily dismiss by Plaintiff.

information with the Pennsylvania federal court.3

II. Discussion.

A federal court is a court of limited of jurisdiction. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct.

1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). That is, a federal court is

authorized to entertain only certain actions which the

Constitution or Congress has authorized it to hear. 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.

(citations omitted). Therefore, a plaintiff is required by Rule

8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to allege in his

complaint “a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which

the court’s jurisdiction depends.” A federal court’s

jurisdiction must be established by a plaintiff in the complaint

by stating the basis of the court’s jurisdiction and by pleading

facts that demonstrate the existence of jurisdiction. Taylor v.

Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994); Kirkland Masonry,

Case 1:05-cv-00670-WS-M Document 11 Filed 03/01/06 Page 5 of 8
 4

The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d

1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopted as binding

precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered

prior to October 1, 1981.

6

Inc. v. Comm’r, 614 F.2d 532, 533 (5th Cir. 1980) (same).4

“[O]nce a court determines that there has been no [Congressional]

grant that covers a particular case, the court’s sole remaining

act is to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.” Morrison

v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000). 

After reviewing the Complaint and Plaintiff’s designation of

the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court concludes

that Plaintiff has failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction

in his Complaint (Doc. 1). “Personal injury” is not a basis for

a federal court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff was previously advised

that “personal injury” was not a basis for the Court’s

jurisdiction in CA 00–0844-CB-S and was advised in that action of

the steps that he could take in regard to his previously filed

asbestos action. Because Plaintiff has not established this

Court’s jurisdiction in his Complaint, Plaintiff’s action is due

to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Barnett

v. Bailey, 956 F.2d 1036, 1039-41 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that

a court is required to examine its jurisdiction over an action at

any time and dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction if jurisdiction is not found). 

III. Conclusion.

Case 1:05-cv-00670-WS-M Document 11 Filed 03/01/06 Page 6 of 8
 5

If Plaintiff had identified a basis for federal court

jurisdiction in his Complaint, his action would eventually be

transferred to the Pennsylvania federal court, which has

jurisdiction over all asbestos actions, including the asbestos

actions on this Court’s docket. Inasmuch as Plaintiff already

has an asbestos action before the Pennsylvania federal court,

even though it is inactive, Plaintiff would gain no more by

having a second action, as it may be consolidated with his Ohio

action already there or may be dismissed as duplicative. 

Plaintiff is advised to work with his lawyer who is representing

him in the Ohio action. Or if, in fact, Plaintiff is no longer

represented by counsel, then he should contact the involved Ohio

or Pennsylvania courts about how to proceed and if he can proceed

without representation.

Based upon the foregoing reason, it is recommended that this

action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.5

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging

the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which

provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

Case 1:05-cv-00670-WS-M Document 11 Filed 03/01/06 Page 7 of 8
8

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 1st day of March, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00670-WS-M Document 11 Filed 03/01/06 Page 8 of 8