BUTLER v. WILSON
2:23-cv-01976-JMY
| E.D. Pa. | Jul 18, 2023Background
- Pro se plaintiff Alfred Butler alleged that Santander VP Brendan Wilson promised to place funds into Butler’s prison account, later told Butler the bank had misplaced CDs and savings totaling roughly $41,900 and over $40,000, and Butler claimed emotional and financial harm seeking $150,000.
- The Court previously dismissed Butler’s original complaint: federal §1983 claims with prejudice (Wilson is not a state actor) and state-law claims without prejudice for failure to plead citizenship for diversity jurisdiction; Butler was allowed to file an amended complaint.
- Butler filed an Amended Complaint naming Wilson (and possibly Santander Bank and Tyyetta Walker, though their inclusion was unclear) and checked that both he and the defendant(s) are “US citizens” without alleging state domiciles.
- The Court construed Butler’s claims as Pennsylvania state-law torts (negligence/fraud) and analyzed subject-matter jurisdiction under diversity (28 U.S.C. § 1332).
- Butler failed to plead the parties’ domiciles or otherwise establish complete diversity, and the Amended Complaint did not assert any plausible federal-question basis (no state action alleged).
- The Court dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to permit further amendment as futile given Butler’s prior opportunity to cure defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Butler alleged wrongful bank conduct that could implicate rights | Wilson is a private bank employee, not a state actor | No federal-question jurisdiction; §1983 claims previously dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists over state-law tort claims | Butler marked parties as “US citizens,” implying diversity | Butler did not allege states of domicile; cannot show complete diversity | No diversity jurisdiction; Amended Complaint dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether plaintiff should get another chance to amend | Butler submitted an Amended Complaint after prior dismissal | Court found Butler already had an opportunity and failed to plead citizenship | Further amendment denied as futile; case dismissed without prejudice for jurisdictional defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Holley v. Dep’t of Veteran Affairs, 165 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 1999) (courts must liberally construe pro se complaints)
- Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015) (plaintiff bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction; complete diversity required)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (burden of establishing jurisdiction rests with party asserting it)
- Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2010) (explaining complete diversity requirement under § 1332)
- Washington v. Hovensa LLC, 652 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2011) (domicile defined as physical presence plus intent to remain)
- Pierro v. Kugel, [citation="386 F. App'x 308"] (3d Cir. 2010) (prisoner’s pre-incarceration domicile presumptively remains during imprisonment)
- Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66 (1939) (plaintiff must establish diversity of citizenship)
- Jones v. Unknown D.O.C. Bus Driver & Transp. Crew, 944 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 2019) (amendment can be futile where plaintiff had multiple chances to plead facts)