Reported / Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Cedric Greene sued Charter Spectrum, Inc. over an alleged January 2019 agreement concerning his monthly billing rate. Greene alleged that Spectrum breached the agreement and invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Greene left the complaint’s amount-in-controversy section blank, although he referenced a monthly payment of $102.01 and requested an opportunity to specify monetary damages later. He also asserted that he was not a citizen of any state and did not distinctly and affirmatively allege each party’s citizenship.
The magistrate judge also reviewed Greene’s extensive litigation history, including multiple cases filed in the Southern District of Texas and repeated attempts to pursue some claims in different federal courts. Several prior actions had been dismissed or were the subject of recommendations for dismissal, and Greene previously had been warned that continued vexatious conduct could result in sanctions.
The Court’s Holding
In a report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Karen Betancourt concluded that Greene had not carried his burden to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The complaint did not allege facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded the statutory threshold, and it failed to allege the parties’ citizenship distinctly and affirmatively. The magistrate judge therefore recommended dismissing the claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denying Greene’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot.
The magistrate judge separately recommended declaring Greene a vexatious litigant. Applying the relevant factors, the judge emphasized Greene’s numerous filings, his repeated pursuit of claims in multiple federal courts, the judicial resources consumed, his prior warning, and the apparent inadequacy of lesser sanctions, while acknowledging that the unserved defendants had not yet borne a litigation burden.
The recommended injunction would require Greene to obtain leave of court before filing additional complaints in the Southern District of Texas and would warn that further abusive or harassing litigation could result in monetary sanctions. The magistrate judge also recommended directing the clerk to close the case. The recommendations remained subject to objections and review by the assigned district judge.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff invoking diversity jurisdiction must affirmatively allege the parties’ citizenship and facts establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum.
- A request to specify damages later does not satisfy the plaintiff’s present burden to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Repeated, duplicative filings across federal courts may support a vexatious-litigant designation and a narrowly tailored prefiling injunction when lesser sanctions appear inadequate.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that liberal construction of a pro se complaint does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to establish federal jurisdiction. Deficient citizenship allegations and an unsupported amount in controversy can require dismissal without prejudice before service.
It also shows how a court may consider a litigant’s broader filing history when deciding whether prospective filing restrictions are warranted. Because this document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, its proposed dismissal and sanctions were not yet a final ruling by the district judge.