Court Opinion

ID: 9931388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 21:01:34.844811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:32.876549
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10714   Document: 29-1    Date Filed: 02/08/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                              [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10714
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JAMES ALBERT YOCUM, JR.,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC,
       MR COOPER,
       d.b.a. Nationstar,
       SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING,
       STOREY MOUNTAIN,
       Successor in interest to Iberiabank,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 23-10714        Document: 29-1        Date Filed: 02/08/2024        Page: 2 of 7

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     23-10714

                              ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Alabama
                       D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-00997-ACA
                            ____________________

       Before JORDAN, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               James Yocum, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of his complaint against mul-
       tiple loan servicers 1 to quiet title on his property. On appeal, he
       argues that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint for
       lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he raised a jurisdictional
       federal question, since his title to the property derived from a fed-
       eral land patent. For the following reasons, we affirm.
              On August 9, 2022, Yocum filed a pro se complaint against
       the defendant loan servicers to quiet title on his property. He al-
       leged that the district court had federal question jurisdiction be-
       cause his property stemmed from a federal land patent issued in
       1858, although Yocum acknowledged that he did not acquire the
       property until 1996. On October 19, 2022, the defendant loan ser-
       vicers filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on
       grounds of res judicata. On December 2, 2022, the district court

       1 The defendant loan servicers are Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., Shellpoint

       Mortgage Servicing, Nationstar, and Storey Moutain.
USCA11 Case: 23-10714      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 02/08/2024     Page: 3 of 7

       23-10714               Opinion of the Court                          3

       entered an order to show cause directing Yocum to show why the
       court should not dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
       tion. After Yocum failed to respond, the district court dismissed
       the complaint without prejudice. Yocum then moved to reopen
       his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and the court
       granted his motion, ordering him to file a response to the court’s
       order to show cause.
               On February 16, 2023, Yocum filed a response arguing that
       the court had federal question jurisdiction because his property was
       granted via a federal land patent. The next day, the district court
       entered an order of final dismissal. The court found that it lacked
       subject matter jurisdiction over the claims because “[t]he existence
       of a land patent does not confer the owner with federal jurisdiction
       over all quiet title claims relating to that property in perpetuity.”
       This timely appeal followed.
              “We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of sub-
       ject matter jurisdiction.” Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165,
       1168 (11th Cir. 2014). “Federal courts have an obligation to exam-
       ine sua sponte their own jurisdiction over a case, notwithstanding
       the contentions of the parties.” DeRoy v. Carnival Corp., 963 F.3d
       1302, 1311 (11th Cir. 2020). If at any time the district court deter-
       mines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dis-
       miss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
              “The plaintiff bears the burden of affirmatively asserting
       facts that show the existence of jurisdiction and including ‘a short
       and plain statement in his complaint of the grounds upon which
USCA11 Case: 23-10714      Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2024     Page: 4 of 7

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10714

       the court’s jurisdiction depends.’” DeRoy, 963 F.3d at 1311 (quoting
       Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)); Fed. R. Civ.
       P. 8(a). “[I]t is the facts and substance of the claims alleged, not the
       jurisdictional labels attached, that ultimately determine whether a
       court can hear a claim.” DeRoy, 963 F.3d at 1311. Though pro se
       pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
       drafted by attorneys and will be liberally construed, a court may
       not serve as de facto counsel for a party or rewrite an otherwise de-
       ficient pleading in order to sustain an action. Campbell, 760 F.3d at
       1168–69.
               District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
       arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
       States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The determination of whether federal
       question jurisdiction exists must be made on the face of the plain-
       tiff’s well-pleaded complaint.” Pacheco de Perez v. AT&T Co., 139
       F.3d 1368, 1373 (11th Cir. 1998). However, even a claim that arises
       under federal law may be dismissed for lack of subject matter juris-
       diction if: (1) “the alleged claim under the Constitution or federal
       statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the
       purpose of obtaining jurisdiction”; or (2) “such a claim is wholly
       insubstantial and frivolous.” Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Sand-
       ers, 138 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327
       U.S. 678, 682–83 (1946)). A claim is wholly insubstantial and frivo-
       lous only “if the claim ‘has no plausible foundation, or if the court
       concludes that a prior Supreme Court decision clearly forecloses
       the claim.’” Id. (quoting Barnett v. Bailey, 956 F.2d 1036, 1041 (11th
       Cir. 1992)).
USCA11 Case: 23-10714         Document: 29-1          Date Filed: 02/08/2024          Page: 5 of 7

       23-10714                   Opinion of the Court                                  5

               The Supreme Court has held that “[o]nce [a federal land] pa-
       tent issues, the incidents of ownership are, for the most part, mat-
       ters of local property law to be vindicated in local courts, and in
       such situations, it is normally insufficient for ‘arising under’ juris-
       diction merely to allege that ownership or possession is claimed
       under a United States patent.” Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v.
       Oneida County, 414 U.S. 661, 676–77 (1974) (quoting Joy v. City of St.
       Louis, 201 U.S. 332, 342–43 (1906)). Though federal courts will con-
       strue the grants of the general government without reference to
       the rules of construction adopted by the states for their grants,
       whatever incidents or rights attach to the ownership of property
       conveyed by the government will be determined by the states, sub-
       ject to the condition that their rules do not impair the efficacy of
       the grants or the use and enjoyment of the property by the grantee.
       Id.
              For example, in Burat’s Heirs v. Board of Levee Commissioners,
       496 F.2d 1336 (5th Cir. 1974), 2 the plaintiffs sought to establish title
       to four sections of land in Louisiana and brought suit in federal
       court. Id. at 1337. The former Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’
       allegations that their title to the lands derived from a United States
       patent did not give the district court federal question jurisdiction
       over the case. See id. at 1337–39. The Fifth Circuit, citing the Su-
       preme Court’s decision in Oneida, recognized that it had “become

       2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we

       adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued
       prior to October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 23-10714      Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2024     Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10714

       a settled principle of law that a jurisdictional federal question is not
       raised merely because title to land devolves from a patent . . . or
       under an act of Congress.” Id. at 1339. The court also explained
       that “questions as to the title and rights to land within a state are of
       primary concern to that state and are not the customary business
       of federal courts.” Id. at 1338.
                District courts also have subject matter jurisdiction over
       civil actions between citizens of different states, or between citizens
       of a state and citizens of a foreign country, where the amount in
       controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When a plaintiff
       files suit in federal court and invokes federal jurisdiction based
       upon diversity, the allegations in the complaint must include the
       citizenship of each party, so that the court is satisfied that no plain-
       tiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant. See Travaglio v.
       Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013).
               Here, the district court did not err by sua sponte dismissing
       Yocum’s complaint because the court lacked subject matter juris-
       diction over his claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); DeRoy, 963 F.3d
       at 1311; Pacheco de Perez, 139 F.3d at 1373. It is a settled principle
       that a jurisdictional federal question is not raised merely because
       title to land devolves from a federal patent, and thus, the district
       court lacked federal question jurisdiction over his claim. See Sand-
       ers, 138 F.3d at 1352; Oneida, 414 U.S. at 676–77; Burat’s Heirs, 496
       F.2d at 1337–39. Additionally, as the district court noted, Yocum’s
       complaint failed to include any allegations regarding the parties’
       citizenships or the amount in controversy. Thus, there are no
USCA11 Case: 23-10714     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 02/08/2024    Page: 7 of 7

       23-10714              Opinion of the Court                        7

       allegations in Yocum’s complaint to support a finding that diversity
       jurisdiction existed. See § 1332; Travaglio, 735 F.3d at 1268.
              Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed the com-
       plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We therefore affirm
       its order dismissing Yocum’s complaint.
             AFFIRMED.