Hendrix Toutges v. McKaig (PLR2), 3:19-cv-00352

Background

Joel McKaig has been under a Tennessee limited conservatorship since 2001; his mother, Anthea Toutges (Plaintiff), was conservator until an Agreed Final Judgment (Aug. 16, 2018) replaced her with his sister Jennifer McKaig.
In Nov. 2018 Plaintiff petitioned the Anderson County Chancery Court to remove Jennifer as conservator; state courts later entered temporary restraining orders against Plaintiff.
In Sept. 2019 Plaintiff (pro se) attempted to remove the state conservatorship litigation to federal court, filed for in forma pauperis, and repeatedly filed (and amended) federal complaints without leave.
Defendants moved to remand, to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and to stay the case; Plaintiff filed multiple voluminous responses and additional proposed amendments.
The district court granted Plaintiff IFP, found no federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, held Plaintiff’s federal and state claims deficient or noncognizable, denied leave to amend (futility), remanded the state-law conservatorship claims, denied a stay as moot, denied defendants’ fee request, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Motion to proceed in forma pauperis	Toutges sought IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 due to indigence	Opposing counsel did not contest indigence	IFP granted, but no summons issued because the case was dismissed
2) Subject-matter jurisdiction (federal question)	Plaintiff cited various federal statutes (e.g., criminal statutes, § 1983, § 144) to invoke § 1331	Defendants argued the cited statutes do not create civil causes of action or show action under color of state law	Court held no federal-question jurisdiction; cited statutes do not supply a cognizable federal cause of action
3) Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity)	Plaintiff checked diversity and later alleged monetary amounts in amended filings	Defendants pointed out lack of amount in controversy in original petition and that proposed additional defendants are Tennessee residents (defeating diversity)	Court held diversity jurisdiction not established; amount-in-controversy not shown and diversity destroyed by parties' residency
4) Sufficiency of pleaded federal and state claims	Toutges asserted conspiracy/criminal statutes, § 1983, state statutory violations, defamation, malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of process	Defendants argued many claims rely on criminal statutes (not civil), private parties were not acting under color of state law, privileges and pleading failures applied, and statutory provisions cited do not create private causes of action	Court dismissed claims for failure to state a claim: criminal statutes not civil causes, § 1983 inapplicable to private actors, defamation allegations insufficient and likely privileged, negligence/fiduciary/malpractice claims not pleaded with required facts or expert support
5) Motions to amend proposed additional defendants and claims	Plaintiff sought to add the state judge, guardian ad litem, opposing counsel, and doctor and to plead more facts and damages	Defendants argued amendments would be futile, would not cure jurisdictional defects, and would destroy diversity or fail on merits	Court denied leave to amend as futile: new claims fail as a matter of law and jurisdictional defects persist
6) Removal/remand and attorneys' fees	Toutges attempted removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441	Defendants moved to remand and requested fees under § 1447(c)	Court held Plaintiff lacked power to remove (only defendants may remove), removal was untimely, remand granted; fee request denied given unusual circumstances and pro se status

Key Cases Cited

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (abstention where federal relief would interfere with pending state proceedings)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (fees under § 1447(c) appropriate when removal lacked objectively reasonable basis)
Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (IFP standards; litigant need not be destitute)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requiring more than conclusory allegations)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (standards for granting leave to amend)
Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544 (removal burden on removing party; strictly construed)
Ohio Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320 (12(b)(1) facial vs factual attack standards)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (amount in controversy for equitable relief measured by value of object of litigation)
Trzebuckowski v. City of Cleveland, 319 F.3d 853 (Rule 12(b)(6) standard accepting factual allegations as true)