Court Opinion

ID: 9895606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 22:01:01.55989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:39.978291
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10118    Document: 57-1     Date Filed: 11/07/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10118
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DEKORRIE K. BELL,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION,

                                                   Defendant- Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-00477-MHH
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10118      Document: 57-1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10118

       Before LAGOA, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             DeKorrie Bell, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of
       her case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
       For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
              Bell filed a complaint against the Birmingham Board of Ed-
       ucation (“the Board”) in federal court using the pro se general com-
       plaint form for civil cases. On the form, she checked the box des-
       ignating “Constitutional or Federal Question” as the basis for juris-
       diction, listed “title IV Civil Rights Act 1962 42 USC 2000 obstruc-
       tion of Justice” as the basis for the federal court’s jurisdiction, and
       sought $40 million in damages. The district court, however, found
       that Bell failed to allege any facts establishing that it had subject
       matter jurisdiction and dismissed her case without prejudice.
              We liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings, holding
       them “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
       lawyers.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir.
       2014). However, this liberal construction does not mean a court
       must serve as de facto counsel for the pro se party, nor does it oblige
       the court to rewrite a deficient pleading to sustain the action. Id.
       at 1168-69. Issues not raised on appeal by a pro se litigant are
       deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.
       2008).
              We review de novo a district court’s determination that it
       lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168. The
USCA11 Case: 23-10118      Document: 57-1       Date Filed: 11/07/2023      Page: 3 of 4

       23-10118                Opinion of the Court                           3

       party bringing the claim bears the burden of establishing that the
       district court has subject matter jurisdiction. Williams v. Poarch
       Band of Creek Indians, 839 F.3d 1312, 1314 (11th Cir. 2016). Federal
       courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and are empowered
       to hear only those cases within its statutory or constitutional au-
       thority. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994).
       Thus, federal courts have jurisdiction over cases raising federal
       questions or cases involving diverse citizens where the amount in
       controversy exceeds $75,000. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).
       “If jurisdiction is based on either of these, the pleader must affirm-
       atively allege facts demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction and
       include a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the
       court’s jurisdiction depends.” Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367 (internal quo-
       tation marks omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). Without such
       allegations, the court must dismiss the action if the plaintiff does
       not cure the deficiency. Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266,
       1268 (11th Cir. 2013); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (explaining
       that a court must dismiss an action once it determines that it lacks
       subject matter jurisdiction).
              As an initial matter, Bell does not challenge the district
       court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in her
       brief, meaning she has abandoned that issue on appeal. Timson, 518
       F.3d at 874. Nevertheless, considering Bell’s pro se status, we will
       review the district court’s dismissal of Bell’s complaint for lack of
       subject matter jurisdiction. Upon such review, we conclude that
       the district court did not err in dismissing Bell’s case for that reason.
       Bell’s pro se complaint failed to allege facts establishing either
USCA11 Case: 23-10118      Document: 57-1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10118

       federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the dis-
       trict court’s dismissal of Bell’s complaint is AFFIRMED.