Whitmore v. Johnson et al, No. 2:2018cv02788 - Document 20 (E.D. La. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying Motion(s) 17 , 18 and 19 . For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Whitmore's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/2/2018. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Whitmore v. Johnson et al Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CARL W. WHITMORE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 18-2788 TRAMANN J OHNSON, ET AL. SECTION “R” (2) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court are plaintiff Carl Whitm ore’s pro se m otions to vacate property, 1 to am end his com plaint, 2 and for a final default judgm ent. 3 Because the Court finds that there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction, it will not entertain the m erits of plaintiff’s m otions and instead dism isses his claim s. I. BACKGROU N D 4 Plaintiff Carl Whitm ore filed a com plaint pro se against Tram ann J ohnson, the Plaquem ines Parish Clerk of Court, and J anice Montague- 1 R. Doc. 17. R. Doc. 18. 3 R. Doc. 19. 4 The pleadings before the Court in this case do not give a full accounting of the relevant circum stances giving rise to plaintiff Carl Whitm ore’s claims. Nevertheless, the Court recounts the following facts as they have been alleged, despite som e rem aining am biguity. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Myles on March 9, 20 18. 5 He initially alleged that the successions of Ophelia Whitm ore Randall and Charles Randall J r. were in error, and that any transfer of property to defendant Tram ann J ohnson should be declared void. 6 On April 5, 20 18, after his initial com plaint was m arked deficient, Whitm ore filed an am ended com plaint. Whitm ore alleges that Tram ann J ohnson is not an heir to Charles Randall or Ophelia Whitm ore Randall because he is not a natural or adopted child. 7 Whitm ore further alleges that Charles Randall’s will is void because the signature line reads Charles Randall, III, rather than Charles Randall, J r. 8 Whitm ore therefore argues that he should be recognized as the sole owner of a first lot and a threefourths owner of a second lot on J ake Lane in Sunshine, Louisiana. 9 Whitm ore also seeks to have the Court declare him the sole beneficiary of Charles Randall J r. 10 Whitm ore attaches court docum ents from a state proceeding in Lorain, Ohio to the am ended com plaint, which do not appear to relate to Whitm ore’s claim s in this action. 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 R. Doc. 1. R. Doc. 1 at 1. R. Doc. 3 at 2. Id. Id. at 2-3. Id. at 3. Id. at 4-6. 2 On J uly 31, 20 18, Whitm ore filed three m otions. The first is a m otion to vacate property, in which Whitm ore requests that the Court order “Tram ann J ohnson [to] vacate the property at 20 50 J ake Lane imm ediately and never return.”12 Whitm ore argues that J ohnson violated a Louisiana district court order by rem oving tools and other item s from the property. 13 The second is a m otion to am end his com plaint, to which Whitm ore attaches a second amended com plaint. 14 The second am ended com plaint repeats Whitm ore’s earlier allegations and also alleges that Tramann J ohnson and two individuals who are not nam ed as defendants in the suit—George Grace J r. and Robert D. Hornstein—are liable for the destruction of a house on 20 50 J ake Lane and for falsifying docum ents. 15 Whitm ore has also attached a copy of Charles Randall’s will to his m otion to am end. 16 This docum ent, signed by Charles Randall, III, leaves the house and land at 20 50 J ake Lane to George and Carl Whitm ore. 17 It leaves the remainder of his property to Tram ain J ohnson, including all m ovables and a property at 219 J ake Lane. 18 The third m otion is a m otion for default judgment, in which Whitm ore seeks 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 R. Doc. 17-1 at 1. Id. See R. Doc. 18-1. Id. at 5-6. Id. at 8. Id. Id. 3 judgm ent against defendants Tram ann J ohnson and the Plaquem ines Parish Clerk of Court for failure to respond to his com plaint. 19 Defendants have not responded to any of the m otions. II. LEGAL STAN D ARD If a federal court is convinced that it lacks subject m atter jurisdiction over a case, it has “a duty to raise the issue of subject-m atter jurisdiction sua sponte.” Am erican Heritage Life Inc. Co. v. Lang, 321 F.3d 533, 537 (5th Cir. 20 0 3) (quoting H & D Tire & Autom otive– Hardw are, Inc. v. Pitney Bow es, Inc., 27 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ). A federal court m ay not entertain a case unless authorized to do so by the Constitution and legislation. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996). Two possibilities for jurisdiction exist: federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded com plaint rule which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded com plaint.” Beneficial N at. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 12 (20 0 3) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. W illiam s, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)); see also Vaden v. Discover Bank, 19 R. Doc. 19. 4 556 U.S. 49, 60 (20 0 9) (explaining that “a suit ‘arises under’ federal law ‘only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law]’”). Diversity jurisdiction exists only when there is com plete diversity of citizenship and the am ount in controversy exceeds $ 75,0 0 0 , exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The am ount in controversy must either be facially apparent or established by a preponderance of the evidence in the pleadings. Felton v. Grey hound Lines, Inc., 324 F.3d 771, 773 (5th Cir. 20 0 3). The party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proving both diversity of citizenship and the am ount in controversy. See Garcia v. Koch Oil of Tex. Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638 (5th Cir. 20 0 3). In addition, an exception to the standard diversity rules exist for probate m atters and the adm inistration of an estate. Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these areas. Akin v. La. N at’l Bank of Baton Rouge, 322 F.2d 749, 751 (5th Cir. 1963). But “federal courts of equity have jurisdiction to entertain suits in favor of creditors, legatees and heirs . . . so long as the federal court does not interfere with the probate proceedings.” Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490 , 494 (1946) (internal quotation m arks om itted). A federal court action interferes with probate proceedings when it “challenge[s] the validity of [the] probate proceeding, . . . seek[s] to recover 5 property from [the] estate,” or when it requires the federal court to “assume control of estate property.” Breaux v. Dilsaver, 254 F.3d 533, 537 (5th Cir. 20 0 1). The Fifth Circuit has specifically held that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over an action that attacks “the validity of the will itself.” Blakeney v. Blakeney , 664 F.2d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 1981). III. D ISCU SSION Plaintiff does not allege a basis for jurisdiction in his com plaint. Nevertheless, because Whitm ore is a pro se litigant, the Court construes his com plaint liberally. See Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994). But even construing Whitm ore’s complaint liberally, none of the claim s he asserts appear to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States as required for jurisdiction under § 1331. Diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 also does not exist. Whitm ore m akes no assertions as to the citizenship of the parties in his pleadings, and the Court cannot definitively discern the parties’ citizenships from the record. Whitm ore also has not alleged that the am ount in controversy exceeds $ 75,0 0 0 , and is it not facially apparent from his com plaint that his injuries exceed this am ount. See Felton, 324 F.3d at 773. Because Whitm ore has not m et the citizenship 6 or am ount in controversy requirements, federal jurisdiction does not exist under § 1332. This case also falls within the probate exception to federal jurisdiction, because judgm ent in this action would interfere with a state judgm ent of possession in a succession proceeding for Randall’s estate. Whitm ore’s allegation that Randall’s will is fraudulent form s the basis for a m ajority of his claim s against J ohnson. The Fifth Circuit has explicitly held that a federal court adjudicating this type of challenge to a will interferes with probate proceedings. Blakeney , 664 F.2d at 434. In addition, Whitm ore alleges that a Louisiana judge has ordered that nothing be rem oved from the property at 20 50 J ake Lane. 20 To the extent that this allegation is true, and to the extent that a Louisiana court has already determ ined ownership of the properties in question during a succession proceeding, this Court has no authority to review those decisions. 21 United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994) (“The Rooker/ Feldm an doctrine holds that federal district courts 20 R. Doc. 17-1 at 1. Whitm ore has m ade additional allegations against J anice MontagueMyles in briefings that are not properly before the Court. Should Whitm ore file an am ended com plaint that includes such allegations, the Court will consider whether these claim s are outside of the jurisdictional exclusion on probate proceedings and whether they m eet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. 7 21 lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state judgm ents.”). For these reasons, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate Whitm ore’s claim s. IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Whitm ore’s action for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction WITHOUT PREJ UDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ 2nd _ _ _ _ day of November, 20 18. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 8
]]>
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.
