Parker v. Settle
4:20-cv-00214
| E.D. Mo. | Feb 12, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Raevon Terrell Parker (pro se) filed a complaint on Feb. 6, 2020 against Sharion Renee Settle seeking $5,000,000 for breach of a verbal contract and for medical services allegedly rendered that saved defendant’s life (claim includes a 2017 Jaguar XE and $2,000 monthly payments).
- Parker asserted federal jurisdiction on diversity grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The complaint duplicated matters Parker filed the same day, including Parker v. Settle, No. 4:20-cv-216-AGF, which the court had dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Parker moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the court granted the IFP motion.
- The court concluded the new complaint was duplicative of the earlier-filed action and that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff and defendant are both Missouri citizens.
- The action was dismissed without prejudice as duplicative and for want of jurisdiction; the court certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint is duplicative of another pending action | Parker reiterates the same contract/medical-service claims seeking $5M | No separate defense briefing; court found the claims and parties substantially identical to an earlier-filed case | Dismissed as duplicative under §1915 screening authority |
| Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | Parker alleged diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332 | Complaint shows both Parker and Settle are Missouri citizens, defeating complete diversity | No diversity jurisdiction; case dismissed for want of jurisdiction |
| Whether the complaint survives preliminary IFP screening under §1915 | Parker (pro se) relies on liberal construction of pleadings | Court must still dismiss claims lacking jurisdiction or duplicative ones despite pro se status | IFP granted, but complaint dismissed under §1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(h)(3) |
| Whether an appeal would be taken in good faith | No argument shown supporting good-faith appeal | Court reviews record and dismissal bases | Court certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (courts must liberally construe pro se complaints)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (pro se litigants not excused from procedural rules)
- Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2004) (courts need not assume facts not alleged)
- I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1986) (test for duplicative litigation: parties, issues, and relief)
- Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss duplicative complaints under §1915)
- OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342 (8th Cir. 2007) (definition of complete diversity)
- Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1991) (federal courts are of limited jurisdiction)
- Gray v. City of Valley Park, 567 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time)