O'Neal v. Metro PCS
2:17-cv-07901
E.D. La.Sep 1, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Floy L. O’Neal sued MetroPCS claiming a store attendant broke his cell phone when he went to purchase service.
- O’Neal was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the Clerk was ordered to withhold summons pending judicial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
- The magistrate judge reviewed the complaint for facial sufficiency and subject-matter jurisdiction.
- No federal-question claim was pleaded; only state-law tort/property damage was alleged.
- Plaintiff did not specify damages; alleged injury was limited to the damaged phone.
- The magistrate concluded the complaint could not meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy threshold for diversity jurisdiction and recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to state-court filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | O’Neal alleged a tort claim against MetroPCS (no federal statute claimed) | MetroPCS implicitly relies on absence of federal claim | No federal-question jurisdiction — none pleaded |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists (complete diversity + $75,000) | O’Neal is Louisiana resident; alleges MetroPCS is headquartered in Texas (diversity possible) | Amount in controversy is far below $75,000 (only a damaged phone alleged) | No diversity jurisdiction — complaint fails amount-in-controversy requirement |
| Whether the case may proceed in forma pauperis despite jurisdictional defects | O’Neal was granted IFP status; seeks to proceed | Court must screen IFP complaints and dismiss if jurisdiction lacking | IFP privilege does not cure lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal recommended without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Startii v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1969) (no absolute right to proceed IFP; screening required)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (IFP privilege can be revoked where appropriate)
- Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 1995) (district courts must dismiss when subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking)
- Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1988) (standards for diversity jurisdiction and citizenship)
- Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348 (1961) (amount in controversy determined from the complaint)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rules on objections to magistrate reports and de novo review)