Greene v. Inglewood Housing Authority
689 F. App'x 612
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Cedric Greene sued the Inglewood Housing Authority and Cinder Eller-Kim Bell alleging discrimination and defamation related to a housing application.
- Greene's complaint pleaded no federal jurisdictional basis; the civil cover sheet showed all parties were California citizens.
- The district court issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of service; Greene said he had not requested a summons yet.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Greene did not argue jurisdiction on appeal.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether federal jurisdiction existed and whether dismissal was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under federal-question jurisdiction | Greene alleged discrimination (implying federal law) but did not identify a federal claim | No federal-question basis was pleaded; defendants contested jurisdiction | No federal-question jurisdiction shown; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 | Greene did not argue diversity; facts showed no diversity | Parties are all California citizens, so diversity lacking | Diversity jurisdiction absent; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether failure to request a summons or serve defendants affected jurisdiction | Greene explained nonservice due to not requesting a summons | District court treated nonservice as part of procedural history but focused on jurisdictional defect | Nonservice did not cure lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal proper |
| Whether 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) created jurisdiction or relief on appeal | Greene invoked § 455(b)(1) claiming judicial bias | § 455(b)(1) concerns judicial disqualification, not subject-matter jurisdiction | § 455(b)(1) does not confer jurisdiction; argument fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (court must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction exists and lack cannot be waived)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (party asserting federal jurisdiction bears burden; presumption against jurisdiction)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (federal-question jurisdiction exists when a claim arises under federal law)
- Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507 (10th Cir.) (federal jurisdiction must clearly appear on the face of the complaint)
- Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir.) (pro se pleadings construed liberally but court will not construct claims for plaintiff)
- Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir.) (court will not supply additional factual allegations or legal theories for pro se plaintiffs)