Madrigal v. Russell Trust Association
2:17-cv-00340
S.D. Tex.Nov 21, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Reynaldo Madrigal sued Russell Trust Association, Yale University, George H.W. Bush, Willard Mitt Romney, and others claiming Yale’s Skull and Bones Society possesses Pancho Villa’s stolen skull and seeking return for burial in Mexico City.
- Complaint was filed in the Southern District of Texas on October 31, 2017; no defendants have appeared.
- Magistrate Judge ordered a more definite statement; plaintiff filed one indicating some defendants are in other states.
- Plaintiff checked both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction on the form; the court examined both bases sua sponte.
- Court found no federal question because the claim seeks return of allegedly stolen property and does not raise a federal-law cause of action.
- Court found diversity jurisdiction lacking because plaintiff and defendant George H.W. Bush are both citizens of Texas; plaintiff also failed to allege the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction — federal question | Madrigal checked federal-question on the form; alleges ownership/possession of skull | Defendants did not appear to assert anything; court evaluated on the face of the complaint | No federal-question jurisdiction — claim does not arise under federal law |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction — diversity of citizenship | Plaintiff alleged some defendants are in other states and checked diversity box | Presence of George H.W. Bush as a Texas resident defeats complete diversity | No diversity jurisdiction — complete diversity lacking (both plaintiff and Bush are Texas citizens) |
| Amount in controversy | Plaintiff sought return of property (no dollar amount alleged) | No assertion to meet statutory jurisdictional threshold | Amount-in-controversy not established; independent basis to deny diversity jurisdiction |
| Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction | Plaintiff seeks relief in federal court | Court must assess jurisdiction sua sponte and the burden is on plaintiff to establish it | Recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must address jurisdiction sua sponte and burden rests on party invoking federal jurisdiction)
- Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 1995) (federal-question jurisdiction depends on the well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. California, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (a case arises under federal law when a federal right is an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action)
- Vela v. Manning, [citation="469 F. App'x 319"] (5th Cir. 2012) (absence of complete diversity requires dismissal under § 1332)
- Geronimo v. Obama, 725 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D.D.C. 2010) (discussing jurisdictional and sovereign-immunity issues in a suit seeking return of human remains)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (failure to timely object to magistrate judge recommendations may waive appellate challenge)