Harris v. Shields et al, No. 2:2015cv02753 - Document 10 (E.D. La. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/10/15. (jjs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harris v. Shields et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LLOYD HARRIS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 15-2753 LLOYD SHIELDS, ET AL. SECTION: R(1) ORD ER AN D REASON S Defendants Lloyd Shields, Andrew Vicknair, J eff Prattini, and J essica Derenbecker m ove the Court to dism iss plaintiff Lloyd Harris’s com plaint for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D Pro se plaintiff Lloyd Harris filed a com plaint for dam ages against a num ber of defendants, including Shields, Vicknair, Prattini, and Derenbecker.2 Under the heading “J urisdiction,” Harris wrote the following: “Hon. Tiffany G. Chase, J udge, Division ‘A’-Section 15.”3 As for his allegations against the m oving defendants, Harris wrote in full: Plaintiffs’ [sic] legal counsel Lloyd N. Shields, Andrew G. Vicknair, J effrey K., and J essica R. Derenbecker, RICO/ professional m alpractice by failing to fulfill fiduciary responsibilities by providing proper legal representation for Case No. 20 13-1478[.] 1 See R. Doc. 9. 2 R. Doc. 1. 3 Id. at 1. Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiffs’ [sic] legal counsel withdrawing [sic] from Case No. 20 131478, without an explanation, after handling the case for a substantial am ount of tim e, with no m ovem ent towards a resolution[.] 4 To encourage Harris to articulate better the allegations underlying his purported RICO claim , the Court issued a RICO Standing Order, to which Harris did not respond.5 Shields, Vicknair, Prittini, and Derenbecker now m ove to dism iss Harris’s com plaint for lack of jurisdiction.6 Harris has not responded. II. D ISCU SSION Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), “[a] case is properly dism issed for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Hom e Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 10 0 6, 10 10 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Now ak v. Ironw orkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996)). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) m otion to dism iss, the Court m ay rely on (1) the com plaint alone, presum ing the allegations to be true; (2) the complaint supplem ented by undisputed facts; or (3) the com plaint supplem ented by undisputed facts and the court’s resolution of disputed facts. Den Norske Stats Ojeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420 , 424 (5th Cir. 20 0 1); 4 Id. at 2. 5 R. Doc. 3. 6 R. Doc. 9. 2 Barrera– Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that the court possesses jurisdiction. Ram m ing v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 20 0 1). Because Harris proceeds pro se, the Court will construe liberally his com plaint for dam ages. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (20 0 7) (“[A] pro se com plaint . . . m ust be held to less stringent standards than form al pleadings drafted by lawyers.”). Harris invokes neither federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor diversity jurisdiction under § 1332. Nonetheless, the Court will analyze Harris’s com plaint under both statutes. A. Fe d e ral Qu e s tio n Ju ris d ictio n Section 1331 vests district courts with “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal jurisdiction under section 1331 “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded com plaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. W illiam s, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (20 0 7). A plaintiff does not properly invoke federal question jurisdiction when his claim is “so insubstantial, im plausible, . . . or otherwise com pletely devoid of m erit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (citations om itted). The only potential ground for federal question jurisdiction that the Court ascertains from Harris’s com plaint is his using the term “RICO,” which the Court construes as a reference to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 3 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. A civil RICO plaintiff has standing only if he can allege that he has suffered an injury to his business or property caused by the defendants’ predicate crim inal acts. See Brow n v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 353 F.3d 40 5, 40 7 (5th Cir. 20 0 3). Harris m akes no such allegations here. Rather, Harris accuses his form er attorneys of legal m alpractice, a claim cognizable only under Louisiana law. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject m atter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. B. D ive rs ity Ju ris d ictio n Section 1332 generally vests district courts with “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the m atter in controversy exceeds . . . $ 75,0 0 0 " and the parties are com pletely diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “[C]om plete diversity requires that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all person on the other side.” McLaughlin v. Miss. Pow er Co., 376 F. 3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 20 0 4). The party asserting diversity jurisdiction exists m ust “distinctly and affirm atively allege [] the citizenship of the parties.” How ery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 20 0 1) (citations om itted). Here, Harris alleges that he is a citizen of the state of Louisiana, dom iciled in J efferson Parish.7 Though Harris does not allege the citizenship of the defendants, the undisputed facts reveal that Shields, Vicknair, Prattini, and Derenbecker are also Louisiana citizens.8 Thus, com plete diversity is lacking, and the Court lacks subject m atter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Harris’s com plaint m ust be dism issed. 7 R. Doc. 1 at 1. 8 R. Doc. 9-1 at 4. 4 III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ Motion to Dism iss. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJ UDICE Harris’s claim s against all defendants for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _10th _ day of Decem ber, 20 15. ___ ___________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 5
]]>
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.
