United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville
Crenshaw Chief Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY U.S. Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is the Motion of Fred C. Statum, III and
Manier & Herod to Dismiss Complaint For Lack Of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction (Docket No. 7) along with supporting
memorandum of law (Docket No. 8) in which the Defendants move
to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Plaintiff has responded to the motion by filing
a Motion to Quash the 27 July 2017 Motion of Fred Statum III
for Dismissal of this Case along with numerous attachments
(Docket No. 11) and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash
the 27 July 2017 Motion of Fred Statum III for Dismissal of
this Case (Docket No. 12). For the reasons stated herein, the
undersigned recommends that the Motion to Dismiss Complaint
For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction be GRANTED.
brought this action against the defendant by the filing of a
complaint the title of which is “OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE.” Docket No. 1. The allegations set forth in
the Complaint are as follows in their entirety:
I believe that Fred Statum, III is fully aware of the
multiple falsifications that were made by Mark Dietz during
the 2014 Trial, No. 3:11-0674. I also believe that Fred
Statum, advised Mark Dietz to vehemently deny making any
falsifications, in order for him to continue to make hundreds
of dollars per hour conjuring up deceitful ways to continue
with his attempts to block the very apparent (obvious)
adverse evidence of the falsifications. I believe that Mark
Dietz are very fearful of the conclusions (verdicts) that a
jury will make and the amount of monetary and punitive
damages that the jury will award.
Fred Statum, III is willfully interfering with the legal
process, Lawsuit No. 3:16-cv-02064, in which Owen Bell is
trying to expose the falsifications made during the Mar 2014,
No. 3: 11-0674. The trial against Owen Bell by Mark Dietz et
Fred C. Statum III and Manier & Herod argue the Complaint,
“is devoid of any mention of the grounds upon which
this court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction. Docket
No. 8, p. 2. They note, Plaintiff's “Complaint
contains no mention, by statutory cite or otherwise, the
basis upon which the Court can exercise subject matter
jurisdiction” and “to the extent any cognizable
cause of action is stated there is no allegation or
indication it arises out of the Constitution, laws or
treaties of the United States.” Id. Defendants
further argue that there are no grounds for the court to
exercise subject matter jurisdiction under the diversity
analysis of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or any other basis for
subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at pp. 2-3. Because
there is no subject matter jurisdiction the defendants assert
the complaint should be dismissed. Id.
Court is required to construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and to accept all well-pleaded
allegations of fact as being true. Collins v. Nagle,
892 F.2d 489, 493 (6th Cir. 1989). Despite the Court's
responsibility to liberally construe the complaint in the
plaintiff's favor, Amore than bare assertions of legal
conclusions is ordinarily required to satisfy federal notice
pleading requirements.@ Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy
Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, the Court does not have to accept as true mere
legal conclusions and unwarranted inferences of fact.
Morgan v. Churchs Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12
(6th Cir. 1987).
while pro se complaints are to be construed liberally
(Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)), that
liberality does not allow a court to conjure up unpled facts.
McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 147 n.4 (5th Cir.
1983); Slotnick v. Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 33 (1st
Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1077
district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S.
534, 541 (1986) (citations omitted). "To determine
whether a claim arises under federal law, a court, under the
well-pleaded-complaint rule, generally looks only to the
plaintiff's complaint." Gentek Building
Products, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320,
325 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Palkow v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 431 F.3d 543, 552 (6th Cir. 2005)). For
jurisdictional purposes, a claim arises under federal law
only where plaintiff's statement of the cause of action
affirmatively shows that it is based on federal law.
Beneficial Nat' L Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1,
6-8 (2003). “Federal question jurisdiction can be
established by showing ‘federal law creates the cause
of action or that the plaintiff[']s right to relief
necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question
of federal law.'” Warthman v. Genoa Twp Board
Trustees., 549 F.3d 1055, 1061 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Franchise Tax Board v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust of
S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)).