Glover v. Brown, 7:17-cv-00284

Plaintiff Rufus M. Glover, proceeding pro se, moved to proceed in forma pauperis; the court granted that motion based on his affidavit.
Glover filed a sparse complaint alleging two named defendants "filed fraudulent taxes in [his] name," seeking $75,000 for the church and $9,900 for himself.
The complaint did not identify a statutory basis for federal jurisdiction (no federal-question allegation and incomplete/unclear diversity allegations); the civil cover sheet incorrectly listed the United States as plaintiff.
The complaint omitted critical factual details: whether the alleged taxes were federal or state, the type of tax, dates, how Glover was harmed, and specific conduct by defendants.
Because subject-matter jurisdiction was not adequately pleaded and the complaint may fail to state a claim, the court gave Glover 30 days to file an amended complaint specifying jurisdiction and adding factual detail rather than dismissing outright.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of allegations to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction	Glover alleges harm from defendants but does not identify federal-question or clear diversity basis	No party presented arguments; court notes the complaint fails to allege jurisdiction	Court held jurisdictional facts are inadequately pleaded and ordered Glover to amend within 30 days
In forma pauperis status	Glover sought IFP based on financial affidavit	Not contested in opinion	Court granted IFP based on affidavit
Sufficiency to state a claim under Rule 12/§1915(e)(2)	Glover alleges fraudulent tax filings and monetary damages without facts or legal theory	No specific defense raised; court evaluated pleading sufficiency sua sponte	Court concluded complaint likely fails to state a claim but allowed amendment to add detail
Fraud pleading particularity (Rule 9(b))	Glover alleges fraud generally	No defendant argument; court applied Rule 9(b) standards	Court instructed fraud (if alleged) must meet Rule 9(b) particularity — time, place, content, and identity of speakers

Brickwood Contractors., Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385 (4th Cir.) (federal courts have only the jurisdiction authorized by Article III and statutes; courts may raise jurisdiction sua sponte)
Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534 (U.S.) (subject-matter jurisdiction limits federal adjudication)
Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642 (4th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden of proving subject-matter jurisdiction)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S.) (if plaintiff cannot show jurisdiction, complaint must be dismissed)
Cent. W. Va. Energy Co. v. Mt. State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101 (4th Cir.) (diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity and amount in controversy)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S.) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S.) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776 (4th Cir.) (fraud allegations must plead time, place, contents, and identity of the speaker under Rule 9(b))