Jefferson v. Osterholt
4:19-cv-00083
| E.D. Mo. | Jun 3, 2019Background
- Plaintiff David Jefferson, proceeding pro se, sues attorney Thomas E. Osterholt over an alleged refusal at a June 2018 St. Louis eviction hearing to review paperwork showing rent had been paid.
- Plaintiff characterizes the conduct as "housing discrimination" and seeks $74,999 for lost income and back pain (stemming from a later car accident).
- Exhibits attached to the complaint include various correspondence and the state-court docket for Neighborhood Gardens Apartments v. Jefferson, which shows Osterholt represented the landlord.
- Jefferson asserts federal-question jurisdiction but does not identify any specific federal statute or constitutional provision in the complaint.
- The court grants Jefferson in forma pauperis status, denies appointment of counsel at this time, and orders Jefferson to show cause within 30 days why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Jefferson alleges "housing discrimination" by Osterholt at a state eviction hearing | No specific federal claim pleaded; defendant has not asserted jurisdictional facts | Court: No well-pleaded federal question shown; complaint does not plead FHA, §1981, or §1983 elements |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists | Jefferson seeks $74,999 in damages | Both parties are Missouri citizens; amount below $75,000 threshold | Court: Diversity jurisdiction lacking (not complete diversity and amount insufficient) |
| Whether case should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Jefferson seeks to proceed in federal court | N/A (court reviews sua sponte) | Court: Orders Jefferson to show cause within 30 days or case will be dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether counsel should be appointed for plaintiff | Jefferson moved for appointed counsel | N/A; court evaluates under civil appointment standard | Court: Denies appointment at this time because jurisdictional defect must be resolved first |
Key Cases Cited
- LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797 (8th Cir.) (discusses subject-matter jurisdiction threshold)
- Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1986) (federal courts limited to powers granted by Constitution and statute)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (U.S. 2013) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Kronholm v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 915 F.2d 1171 (8th Cir.) (jurisdiction is threshold requirement)
- Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214 (8th Cir.) (district courts must ensure jurisdictional requirements)
- Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., 567 F.3d 976 (8th Cir.) (jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Court of Spirit Lake Indian Reservation, 495 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir.) (lack of diversity and federal question means lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- McLaurin v. Prater, 30 F.3d 982 (8th Cir.) (district courts have jurisdiction over federal-question and diversity cases)
- Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 785 F.3d 1182 (8th Cir.) (definition of federal-question jurisdiction)
- Markham v. Wertin, 861 F.3d 748 (8th Cir.) (well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938, 743 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir.) (federal question must appear on face of complaint)
- Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. P’ship v. Essar Steel Minn. LLC, 843 F.3d 325 (8th Cir.) (well-pleaded complaint rule application)
- Williams v. Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700 (8th Cir.) (plaintiff must show federal law creates the cause or resolution of substantial federal question)
- Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock, Ark., 784 F.3d 479 (8th Cir.) (§1983 claims arise under federal law)
- Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir.) (elements of Fair Housing Act claims)
- Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835 (8th Cir.) (elements of a §1981 claim)
- Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842 (8th Cir.) (§1983 requires action under color of state law and deprivation of federal right)
- Ryan ex rel. Ryan v. Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816 (8th Cir.) (diversity jurisdiction requirements)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Universal Crop Prot. All., LLC, 620 F.3d 926 (8th Cir.) (good-faith allegation of amount suffices unless legal certainty shows otherwise)
- Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883 (8th Cir.) (dismiss if legal certainty shows amount below jurisdictional threshold)
- Peterson v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 867 F.3d 992 (8th Cir.) (legal certainty standard explained)
- OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342 (8th Cir.) (complete diversity requires no shared state citizenship)
- Blakemore v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 789 F.2d 616 (8th Cir.) (state citizenship requires presence and intent to remain)
- Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940 (8th Cir.) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases)
- Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845 (8th Cir.) (standard for appointing counsel in civil cases)