Gordon v. Smith
2:17-cv-05192
E.D. La.Jul 18, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Wayne Gordon sued multiple defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and for constitutional violations, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief related to an automobile purchased at auction.
- The court granted in forma pauperis status but ordered Gordon to show cause why the case should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Gordon alleged private businesses (Gas Boyz; Manheim Mississippi) and others acted as state actors or conspired with state actors to deprive him of property.
- The magistrate judge found no allegations that any defendant was a state actor or had conspired with a state actor to effect a constitutional deprivation under § 1983/§ 1985.
- Complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was lacking because both Gordon and at least one defendant (George A. Smith) are Louisiana citizens.
- Recommendation: dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and direct Gordon to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983/§ 1985 jurisdiction exists | Gordon: private auction businesses and a public auction make defendants state actors or conspirators with state actors | Defendants: private entities are not state actors and mere participation in public auctions or receipt of government benefits is insufficient | No § 1983/§ 1985 jurisdiction; no state action or conspiracy alleged |
| Whether in forma pauperis complaint must be dismissed sua sponte under § 1915(e)(2)(B) | Gordon: claims merit (implicit) | Court: § 1915 permits dismissal when claim lacks arguable legal/factual basis | Court ordered dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a federal claim |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists | Gordon: (implicit) federal diversity exists to hear claim | Defendants: at least one defendant shares Louisiana citizenship with plaintiff, defeating complete diversity | No diversity jurisdiction; complete diversity absent |
| Proper forum for the dispute | Gordon: federal court (by asserting federal statutes) | Court: facts show no federal jurisdiction; state court is proper forum | Case recommended dismissed without prejudice; belongs in state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978) (private party’s conduct in disposing of property does not necessarily constitute state action)
- Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov't, 921 F. Supp. 2d 605 (W.D. La. 2013) (elements required for a § 1983 claim)
- Startii v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1969) (in forma pauperis privilege may be revoked)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (revocation of in forma pauperis is not novel)
- Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 1995) (district court must dismiss when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)