Agnew v. No Limit Motors, 3:17-cv-02375

Plaintiff Norman L. Agnew, an inmate, sued No Limit Motors (a Texas business now apparently defunct) seeking return of his Ford Ranger and tools and related relief after the shop allegedly retained his vehicle following transmission work.
Agnew’s complaint asserted constitutional claims (due process, Fourth Amendment) but principally seeks recovery of property and costs.
The district court ordered Agnew to show subject-matter jurisdiction by a specified deadline; he did not comply and instead later filed an application for a writ of sequestration.
The magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) to determine whether federal jurisdiction exists.
The court found no affirmative, distinct allegations establishing diversity or a federal-question basis and found inadequate facts to treat the private defendant’s conduct as state action.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists	Agnew did not expressly allege diversity but seeks relief against a Texas business	No Limit is (or was) a Texas business; complete diversity likely lacking	Court: plaintiff failed to affirmatively plead diversity; diversity jurisdiction not established
Whether a federal question exists	Agnew alleges violations of due process and the Fourth Amendment	Claims are essentially property/state-law disputes; relief (sequestration) governed by state law	Court: complaint does not present a substantial, disputed question of federal law; §1331 not shown
Whether private defendant acted under color of state law	Agnew alleges constitutional violations by No Limit	No factual nexus alleged showing state involvement or close nexus to attribute actions to the State	Court: insufficient facts to treat private conduct as state action; §1983-type claims fail
Whether preliminary writ (sequestration) supports federal jurisdiction	Agnew sought a writ to recover property	Writ rights and sequestration are grounded in state law and property remedies	Court: filing for sequestration underscores state-law nature of dispute; federal jurisdiction lacking

Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (federal courts have independent duty to examine subject-matter jurisdiction)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction)
Borden v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 168 (existence of federal question requires federal law to create cause or be essential to right to relief)
In re Hot-Hed, Inc., 477 F.3d 320 (federal-question threshold when complaint shows disputed federal issue)
Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N.A., 841 F.2d 1254 (jurisdictional basis must be alleged affirmatively and distinctly)
Priester v. Lowndes County, 354 F.3d 414 (private action deemed state action only when conduct is fairly attributable to the State)
Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510 (private individuals generally not acting under color of law)
Rocket Indus., Inc. v. S. Tire & Supply, Inc., 702 F.2d 561 (right to writ of sequestration examined under state law)