Case Name: Ricky WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joyce RAYFORD, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-10
Citations: 161 F. App'x 425
Docket Number: No. 05-60827
Parties: Ricky WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joyce RAYFORD, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
Ricky WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joyce RAYFORD, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-60827.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 10, 2006.
Rickey Wilson, Canton, MS, pro se.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Wilson sued Joyce Rayford for civil fraud, alleging that Rayford sold him a car in which she did not have legal title. The district court sua sponte dismissed Wilson's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Wilson appeals.
Wilson proceeds pro se; therefore, we construe his pleadings liberally. However, "[fjederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Therefore, as always, the plaintiff must show that a statutory basis for federal jurisdiction exists before his case can be heard in federal court. We have carefully considered Wilson's pro se complaint and given respectful attention to his arguments on appeal; however, we find no basis for federal court jurisdiction in this case. There is no assertion that this cause of action is between citizens of different states, as required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1382, because Wilson asserts that both he and Rayford are citizens of Mississippi.
Moreover, Wilson has not asserted any claims in his complaint arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as required for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In determining whether a case "arises under federal law" we look to whether the "plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint" raises issues of federal law. Even when read liberally, Wilson's complaint fails to meet this burden. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to hear this claim.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) ("Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.").
. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir.1986) ("[P]ro se pleadings must be construed liberally.").
. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994).
. See Id. ("It is presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction."); see also Beiser v. Weyler, 284 F.3d 665, 674 (5th Cir. 2002) ("We thus make especially certain that we take jurisdiction only over such cases as Congress has provided by statute.").
. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir.2001).