Court Opinion

ID: 9364964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 20:00:37.952865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.566638
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12861    Document: 10-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                No. 22-12861
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       OTIS GAMBLE, III,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Alabama
                 D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-00684-WKW-CWB
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12861      Document: 10-1       Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12861

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Otis Gamble, III, sued Allstate Insurance Co. over his right
       to payment from certain life insurance policies. But he did not
       establish any basis for a federal court to hear his lawsuit. We
       therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of his case.
               Gamble began this pro se lawsuit in 2019, alleging that he
       was entitled to funds from life insurance policies issued by Allstate
       and that he unsuccessfully tried to litigate this claim in state court.
       A magistrate judge granted Gamble’s motion to proceed in forma
       pauperis and conducted a pretrial screening of the complaint under
       28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The magistrate judge determined that
       Gamble’s complaint did not explain the federal court’s basis for
       jurisdiction or allege facts that, if true, would justify relief from a
       federal court. So she ordered Gamble to file an amended
       complaint. He did so, but the magistrate judge determined that the
       amended complaint suffered from “many—if not all—of the same
       fatal flaws” of the first complaint, and that it failed “to allege
       sufficient facts to invoke either federal question jurisdiction . . . or
       diversity jurisdiction.” The district court agreed and ordered the
       complaint dismissed without prejudice. Gamble appealed to this
       Court, and we now review the district court’s judgment of
       dismissal.
USCA11 Case: 22-12861      Document: 10-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-12861               Opinion of the Court                         3

              “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They
       possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”
       Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
       (1994). That means that Gamble had to show why his case fell
       within the district court’s jurisdiction before the court could rule
       on the merits of his complaint. In his amended complaint, Gamble
       copied portions of the federal question and diversity jurisdiction
       statutes. But he did not allege any facts that, if true, would suggest
       either (1) that his case involved the Constitution or laws of the
       United States federal government, or (2) that he was a citizen of a
       different state than Allstate and that the amount in controversy
       between them was greater than $75,000. And on appeal, Gamble
       does not explain why the district court actually had jurisdiction
       over his case. Because the district court had no reason to think that
       it had power to hear this lawsuit, it had no choice but to dismiss
       Gamble’s amended complaint.
             We AFFIRM.