Austin v. MBNA America, No. 3:2006cv01010 - Document 2 (M.D. Ala. 2006)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/16/06. (djy, )

Download PDF
Austin v. MBNA America Doc. 2 Case 3:06-cv-01010-MHT-CSC Document 2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 1 of 4 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION ALONZO AUSTIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. MBNA AMERICA, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv1010-MHT (WO) OPINION In this case, pro se plaintiff Alonzo Austin appears to be asking this court to enter a judgment confirming an arbitration award in his favor of $ 973.85. Because this court lacks jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed. Federal district jurisdiction; courts jurisdiction are courts must of limited therefore be affirmatively alleged by the party making a claim or complaint. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Kirkland Masonry v. Comm r of Case 3:06-cv-01010-MHT-CSC Document 2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 2 of 4 Internal Revenue, 614 F.2d 532, 533 (5th Cir. 1980) (per curiam).* Austin s complaint fails to do this. Nor does there appear to be any basis of subjectmatter jurisdiction that Austin could allege. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, does not See Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. itself confer jurisdiction. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n.32 (1983). Rather, § 9 of that Act provides for confirmation of an arbitration award only when the federal district court has an independent basis for jurisdiction. Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir. 1997). No such independent basis exists here. First, under 28 there U.S.C. is § no federal-question 1331. There is jurisdiction nothing in the complaint to indicate that the underlying dispute between * In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. 2 Case 3:06-cv-01010-MHT-CSC Document 2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 4 Austin and MBNA arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Second, there is no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. controversy Section 1332 contains an amount-in- requirement of $ 75,000. Austin s arbitration award of $ 973.85 falls far short of that threshold. Third, the court knows of no other federal statute that could confer original jurisdiction on this court to adjudicate the instant cause. The court not only has the power but also the obligation to determine sua whether sponte jurisdiction over a cause of action. it has Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). Whenever it appears by suggestion of or otherwise the subject the parties jurisdiction of dismiss the action. that matter, the court lacks the court shall Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (emphases added). 3 Case 3:06-cv-01010-MHT-CSC Document 2 Filed 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 4 Accordingly, this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and thus without prejudice to Austin s being able to re-file his case in state court. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 16th day of November, 2006. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.