Opinion
No. 3:02-CV-1667-P
August 14, 2002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. Background
Nature of the Case: Plaintiff David Selver, a current state inmate in Collin County Detention Facility and former resident of Plano, Texas, has filed the instant unspecified civil action against Ford Motor Credit Company located in Fort Worth, Texas. No service has been issued in this case.
II. Jurisdiction
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). They "must presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal forum." Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 459 (2001).
Plaintiff's complaint contains no basis for jurisdiction. He claims that defendant has knowingly and intentionally harmed him by deception and deceit. Defendant is not a state actor, so 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides no basis for jurisdiction. If plaintiff has any valid claim against defendant it appears to arise solely under state law. Federal courts, nevertheless, have no jurisdiction over such claims in the absence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff, however, has not established the complete diversity of citizenship necessary to proceed under § 1332. See Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that "[t]he burden of proving that complete diversity exists rests upon the party who seeks to invoke the court's diversity jurisdiction").
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) requires that federal courts dismiss an action "[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter." In this instance, it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Consequently, the action should be dismissed. The proper forum appears to be state court.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court summarily DISMISS plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.