Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Allen Eugene Looney sued 95 people and entities, asserting numerous theories that included malpractice, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, tortious interference, emotional distress, consumer-protection violations, civil-rights violations, RICO violations, and defamation. The district court allowed Looney to amend his complaint three times, and defendants moved to dismiss each version.
After Looney sought permission to file a fourth amended complaint, the district court denied that request. Adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation after de novo review, the court dismissed the third amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Looney appealed the dismissal and denial of leave to amend.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Looney’s third amended complaint supplied no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Although it invoked federal-question jurisdiction, the complaint asserted only state-law claims. The district court therefore properly dismissed the action without prejudice.
The court also held that denying leave to file the proposed fourth amended complaint was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would have been futile. Despite citing federal statutes, the proposed complaint did not allege facts establishing a federal cause of action, and merely invoking federal statutes did not create federal-question jurisdiction. Because these rulings were dispositive, the Fifth Circuit did not address Looney’s other asserted errors.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing a valid jurisdictional basis.
- State-law claims do not create federal-question jurisdiction merely because the complaint cites federal statutes.
- A district court may deny leave to amend when the proposed amendment would not cure the jurisdictional defect.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that references to federal law cannot substitute for factual allegations supporting an actual federal cause of action. It also confirms that courts need not permit repeated amendments when another proposed complaint would leave the same jurisdictional deficiency unresolved.