Reported / Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Charity Tersia Marshall filed a complaint against Glen Oaks Mental Hospital in Greenville, Texas, and Methodist Richardson Medical Center, alleging two discrete claims: violation of habeas corpus rights and theft of her passport, wallet, and money from her Wells Fargo Bank account. Marshall sought $7 billion in damages. The magistrate judge noted that the complaint was “inartfully pled and illogical,” and that Marshall indicated on the civil cover sheet that her claims arose from tort actions including personal injury, health care, and personal property damage.
The plaintiff and all defendants are residents of Texas. Marshall sought to invoke federal jurisdiction but provided no basis for the court to exercise it. The magistrate judge was required to examine sua sponte whether subject matter jurisdiction existed.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found no basis for federal question jurisdiction. Although Marshall mentioned habeas corpus rights, a “single passing reference” to a federal statute is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction; the complaint must establish that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial federal law question. Marshall’s allegations were purely state tort claims, and her passing reference to habeas corpus was merely incantational, not a substantive invocation of federal law.
The court also found no diversity jurisdiction. Complete diversity of citizenship requires that the plaintiff and all defendants be citizens of different states. Because Marshall and all defendants are Texas residents, diversity jurisdiction is defeated. Because neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction existed, the court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Amendment would be futile because the lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by repleading.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se plaintiff’s passing reference to a federal statute or constitutional provision is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction; the complaint must allege facts establishing that federal law creates the cause of action or that relief depends on resolution of a substantial federal law question.
- Complete diversity jurisdiction is defeated if the plaintiff and any defendant share the same state citizenship, regardless of the amount in controversy.
- Pro se pleadings receive liberal construction, but even under the most lenient standard, purely state tort claims cannot support federal jurisdiction through a mere mention of habeas corpus.
- Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate without leave to amend when the jurisdictional defect is uncurable by repleading.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the strict jurisdictional requirements that govern federal courts’ power to hear cases, even when dealing with pro se litigants entitled to liberal pleading standards. Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and cannot exercise authority merely because a plaintiff invokes federal concepts or statutes in passing. The decision reinforces that pro se status does not exempt litigants from jurisdictional requirements, though it does entitle them to more generous interpretation of their pleadings.
The magistrate judge also issued a warning that this was Marshall’s third filing involving jurisdictional defects, cautioning that continued frivolous filings could result in monetary sanctions and an injunction barring her from filing further actions. This aspect reflects judicial concern about repeat abusive litigation that clogs dockets, and signals that pro se litigants’ right to access courts is not unlimited when they persistently file legally baseless actions.