Hopkins v. Law Office of Shasta R Brown, Esq
3:17-cv-02915
N.D. Tex.Nov 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff, a Texas state inmate, filed pro se a civil-rights form complaint seeking resolution of his mother’s wrongful-death case, half of estate proceeds, and damages against five defendants (three private attorneys and two police officials).
- Allegations against attorneys (Shasta R. Brown, Wynthia J. Cheatum, Audrey Moorehead) assert legal malpractice/delays: failure to obtain experts, failure to respond, refusal to advance money.
- Allegations against former Dallas Chief of Police (and Officer David O. Brown) are limited to failure to acknowledge or respond to a mailed complaint and conclusory statements linking him to the attorneys’ conduct.
- Plaintiff invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the civil-rights form, but pleaded only state-law facts and did not allege acts under color of state law by the attorneys.
- Court sua sponte reviewed subject-matter jurisdiction and concluded neither federal-question nor diversity jurisdiction existed. Case recommended for dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint raises a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 | Hopkins alleges constitutional violations by defendants (form pleading under § 1983) | Facts show state-law malpractice and no acts under color of state law | Dismissed — no federal-question jurisdiction; § 1983 elements not satisfied |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists | Hopkins seeks money/damages (amount unspecified) | Parties share Texas citizenship; no complete diversity | Dismissed — no diversity jurisdiction |
| Whether the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Hopkins’ claims related to the same controversy | Supplemental jurisdiction requires an underlying federal claim | No supplemental jurisdiction because no original federal jurisdiction exists |
| Whether to grant leave to amend | Hopkins could cure pleading defects | Amendment would be futile because facts show no basis for federal or diversity jurisdiction | Denied as futile; dismissal without prejudice recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (establishes that § 1983 requires action under color of state law)
- System Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V Viktor Kurnatovsky, 242 F.3d 322 (5th Cir.) (court must examine subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d 248 (5th Cir.) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction)
- Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853 (5th Cir.) (complete diversity requirement; plaintiff sharing defendant’s state defeats diversity)
- Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764 (5th Cir.) (leave to amend unnecessary when plaintiff has pled his best case)
- Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.) (procedural rules for objections to magistrate judge reports)