Court Opinion

ID: 9352946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 16:00:59.411863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:06.551044
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10853   Document: 17-1    Date Filed: 01/10/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-10853
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       HAYWOOD JACKSON MIZELL,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       THE CITIZENS BANK,
       JAMES H. WEATHERFORD,
       Chairman,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10853         Document: 17-1         Date Filed: 01/10/2023         Page: 2 of 6

       2                          Opinion of the Court                       22-10853

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00337-WKW-SRW
                             ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Haywood Jackson Mizell appeals the district court’s dismis-
       sal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We af-
       firm. 1
                                             I.

               Mizell’s complaint seeks relief against a bank and its chair-
       man for an allegedly wrongful 2008 bankruptcy sale of a radio sta-
       tion. Mizell insists the sale was unlawful because the bank never
       produced an original promissory note during the proceedings.
       Mizell doesn’t dispute that all parties are Alabama citizens, depriv-
       ing the district court of diversity jurisdiction. Instead, he argues the
       district court has subject matter jurisdiction because his complaint
       raises a federal question. Mizell argued in the district court that the
       Federal Communications Commission’s “regulation of airwaves”

       1 The district court also dismissed Mizell’s complaint because it failed to state
       a claim and lodged an improper collateral attack on a bankruptcy court’s or-
       der. We don’t reach those additional grounds for dismissal because we agree
       with the district court that Mizell hasn’t established subject matter jurisdic-
       tion.
USCA11 Case: 22-10853     Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 01/10/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       22-10853               Opinion of the Court                        3

       supplied the basis for federal question jurisdiction. The district
       court rejected this argument because—even had Mizell identified a
       specific regulation—the commission’s regulatory regime was in-
       sufficiently tied to his claims. On appeal, Mizell advances a differ-
       ent federal question: “whether a corporate person can be made
       exempt . . . from a private contract obligation supported by one of
       the Federal Rules of [Evidence], Rule 1002 Requirement of the
       Original.”
                                       II.

               When reviewing a district court’s dismissal for lack of sub-
       ject matter jurisdiction, we review legal conclusions de novo and
       jurisdictional factual findings for clear error. Williams v. Poarch
       Band of Creek Indians, 839 F.3d 1312, 1314 (11th Cir. 2016). Mizell
       bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Id. If
       he fails to do so, his case must be dismissed. Id.
              Pro se complaints are construed liberally and held to less
       stringent standards. Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165,
       1168 (11th Cir. 2014). But this leniency has limits, and we will not
       rewrite a “deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Id. at
       1168–69 (quoting GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d
       1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)).
USCA11 Case: 22-10853      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 01/10/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10853

                                        III.

             The district court properly dismissed this case for lack of
       subject matter jurisdiction. Neither of Mizell’s theories of federal
       question jurisdiction are viable.
               A case raises a federal question if its claims arise under fed-
       eral law. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 387 (2012)
       (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331). “A suit arises under the law that creates
       the cause of action.” Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.,
       241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916); accord Atl. Richfield Co. v. Christian, 140
       S. Ct. 1335, 1350 (2020).
              Although he doesn’t argue it on appeal, we consider
       whether Mizell has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the
       Federal Communications Commission’s regulations. See Gonzalez
       v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012) (“When a requirement goes to
       subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua
       sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not pre-
       sented. Subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived or for-
       feited.” (citation omitted)). In short, he doesn’t.
               Mizell alleged a “[w]rongful foreclosure” claim against a
       bank and its chairman. And he alleged that the wrongfully fore-
       closed asset was a commission-licensed broadcast signal. But Miz-
       ell’s suit doesn’t arise under federal law just because the foreclosed
       asset was licensed and generally regulated by the commission. See
       Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Ct. of Del. In & For New
       Castle Cnty., 366 U.S. 656, 663 (1961) (“[Claims] do not lose their
USCA11 Case: 22-10853      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 01/10/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-10853                Opinion of the Court                         5

       character because it is common knowledge that there exists a
       scheme of federal regulation . . . .”) Mizell must allege facts show-
       ing how the commission’s licensing of the broadcast signal or how
       its general regulatory framework provided a cause of action for his
       claim. His failure to do so is fatal to this theory of federal question
       jurisdiction.
               Mizell pivots on appeal to a new theory: that his claim arises
       under the Federal Rules of Evidence. That Rule requires “[a]n orig-
       inal writing . . . to prove its content.” Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Read
       liberally, Mizell’s jurisdictional theory is that the bank violated
       Rule 1002 by not producing an original promissory note during the
       2008 bankruptcy.
              The Federal Rules of Evidence don’t create causes of action.
       The statute authorizing the Rules plainly states the “rules shall not
       abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.” 28 U.S.C.
       § 2072(b). Moreover, the very first Federal Rule of Evidence states
       that “[t]hese rules apply to proceedings in United States courts.”
       Fed. R. Evid. 101 (emphasis added). This means the Rules only ap-
       ply to “proceedings already commenced”; a plaintiff can’t “use the
       rules to initiate a proceeding.” In re Madison Guar. Sav. & Loan
       Ass’n, 173 F.3d 866, 869 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“We know of no author-
       ity, and indeed perceive no logic, that would support the proposi-
       tion that the Rules of Evidence create any cause of action or ever
       provide standing.”).
USCA11 Case: 22-10853     Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 01/10/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                     Opinion of the Court                22-10853

               Both of Mizell’s jurisdictional theories are meritless. The
       district court properly dismissed his complaint for lack of subject
       matter jurisdiction.
             AFFIRMED.