Court Opinion

ID: 9382767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 18:00:35.686358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.467886
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10609        Document: 00516691032             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                      No. 22-10609                              March 28, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk

   John Louis Atkins,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Jeffrey A. Propst,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:19-CV-166

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         John Louis Atkins, Texas prisoner No. 2184778, appeals the district
   court’s dismissal of his second amended complaint for lack of subject matter
   jurisdiction. Because Atkins fails to show any reversible error, we AFFIRM.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10609      Document: 00516691032          Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/28/2023

                                    No. 22-10609

                                          I
          This appeal stems from Atkins’s lawsuit against his former attorney,
   Jeffrey A. Propst, and it is the second appeal on these facts. Among other
   allegations, Atkins alleged that Propst committed legal malpractice, breached
   his fiduciary duty, and violated Atkins’s right to due process. Having
   reviewed Atkins’s complaint, the district court originally sua sponte dismissed
   the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a
   claim. In dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the
   district court held that there was no complete diversity because both Atkins
   and Propst are citizens of Texas. Atkins appealed this dismissal to the Fifth
   Circuit. Atkins v. Propst, No. 20-11008, 2022 WL 24504, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan.
   3, 2022). On that appeal, Atkins argued that because he is a citizen of
   Wyoming, the district court erred in holding that diversity did not exist.
          However, we declined to address the issue because “The district
   court should have given Atkins an opportunity to further develop his
   allegations before sua sponte dismissing the case.” Id. (citing Bazrowx v.
   Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998); Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th
   Cir. 1994)). Consequently, the panel vacated the judgment of the district
   court and remanded the case “so that Atkins may receive such an
   opportunity.” Id.
          On remand, the district court ordered Atkins to file a second amended
   complaint so he could cure any defects. Atkins submitted a second amended
   complaint soon after. But despite the amendment, the district court held that
   the complaint was still deficient: “Having been notified that his pleading was
   insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction and given an opportunity to
   address that issue, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden.”
          The district court observed that “Aside from [] conclusory
   allegations, [Atkins] does not set forth any facts to substantiate his

                                          2
Case: 22-10609       Document: 00516691032           Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/28/2023

                                      No. 22-10609

   [Wyoming] citizenship. Instead, the allegations in his pleadings continue to
   reflect that [he] lived in Abilene when he was detained at his place of work by
   Abilene Police.” Importantly, the district court also noted that “shortly
   before the filing of this suit, [Atkins] represented under penalty of perjury to
   the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota in a
   complaint he filed that he is a citizen of Texas.” See Atkins v. Atkins, No.
   3:19-CV-023 (D.N.D. Dec. 21, 2018). Accordingly, the court held that
   Atkins’s self-serving conclusory allegation that he is a citizen of Wyoming
   was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction and dismissed the case for
   lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Atkins timely appealed.
                                           II
            The district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
   reviewed de novo. See Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 978 F.3d 280, 281 (5th Cir.
   2020). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Atkins had the burden of
   pleading diverse citizenship. Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir.
   1974).
                                           III
            Atkins argues that the district court erred in dismissing the case for
   lack of subject matter jurisdiction for three reasons. First, Atkins contends
   that the district court erred in holding that he is a citizen of Texas because:
   (1) He was a citizen of and domiciled in Wyoming prior to his arrest; and (2)
   “A prisoner is a citizen of the state of which he was a citizen before he was
   sent to prison unless he plans to live elsewhere when he gets out.” Bontkowski
   v. Smith, 305 F.3d 757, 763 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
   omitted); see also Ronald Alexander LeBlanc Trust v. Ransom, 276 F. Supp. 2d
   647, 651 (S.D. Tex. 2003). Second, Atkins asserts that the district court
   improperly relied on matters outside of the pleadings by taking judicial notice
   on its own accord.       And third, Atkins contends that even if diversity

                                            3
Case: 22-10609      Document: 00516691032             Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/28/2023

                                      No. 22-10609

   jurisdiction does not exist, the district court should have exercised federal
   question and supplemental jurisdiction.           None of these arguments are
   persuasive. We address each in turn.
                                           A
          Atkins argues that he is a citizen of Wyoming because he was
   domiciled in Wyoming prior to his arrest in Abilene. He asserts that he came
   to Texas only for temporary employment and that he “rented rooms at
   various Hotels and Inns in Texas because [he] had no intent to stay in
   Texas.” And he notes that he has never held any kind of Texas ID or vehicle
   registration. Rather, he contends that at the time of his arrest, his car was
   titled and registered in Wyoming and that he had a Wyoming state ID.
          Thus, because “[a] prisoner is a citizen of the state of which he was a
   citizen before he was sent to prison unless he plans to live elsewhere when he
   gets out,” Atkins contends that he is still a citizen of Wyoming. Bontkowski,
   305 F.3d at 763 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, he argues
   that the district court erred in holding that diversity jurisdiction did not exist.
          But Atkins’s argument fails because he only mentioned those
   supporting allegations for the first time on appeal; he did not include any of
   those assertions in any of his complaints. As the district court correctly
   noted, Atkins’s operative complaint does “not set forth any facts to
   substantiate his [Wyoming] citizenship.”
          Because Atkins was on notice that his pleading may be deficient, and
   yet he failed to include any meaningful supporting allegations in his second
   amended complaint, we hold that the district court correctly dismissed
   Atkins’s complaint for want of jurisdiction. And we see no reason to give
   him yet another chance to replead.

                                           4
Case: 22-10609      Document: 00516691032             Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/28/2023

                                       No. 22-10609

                                            B
          Next, Atkins argues that the district court improperly relied on
   matters outside of the pleadings in reaching its decision. But Atkins’s
   argument is unpersuasive because this court has held that a district court is
   allowed to take “judicial notice of public documents” to sua sponte consider
   whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp.,
   805 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Kaufman v. W. Union Telephone Co.,
   224 F.2d 723, 725 (5th Cir. 1955)).
                                            C
          Finally, Atkins argues that even if diversity jurisdiction does not exist,
   the district court could still consider his claims based on federal question and
   supplemental jurisdiction. On this issue, the district court held that federal
   question jurisdiction does not exist because: (1) Plaintiff has omitted
   references to federal question jurisdiction in his new complaint; and (2) The
   only claims asserted are brought pursuant to state tort law. The district court
   further held that there is no supplemental jurisdiction “because there is no
   federal question jurisdiction to be supplemented.”
          We agree with the district court’s determination that federal question
   jurisdiction does not exist and that supplemental jurisdiction cannot exist on
   its own. See Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc., 669 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2012)
   (noting that there can be “no supplemental jurisdiction of other claims”
   without an independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction (quoting 13D
   Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3567 (3d ed. 2008)).
                                   *        *         *
          For these reasons, the district court correctly determined that Atkins
   failed to plead sufficient facts to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The
   district court also properly denied Atkins’s motion for recusal because he

                                            5
Case: 22-10609    Document: 00516691032         Page: 6   Date Filed: 03/28/2023

                                 No. 22-10609

   “offers nothing more than unsubstantiated suggestions.” Accordingly, we
   AFFIRM.

                                      6