Searcy v. Progressive Insurance, 3:22-cv-02803

Plaintiff Candace Searcy, proceeding pro se, sued Progressive Insurance alleging that a Progressive-insured defendant committed perjury at a Tarrant County trial, fled the scene of a hit-and-run, and used a racial slur (which Searcy characterized as a federal hate crime).
Searcy sought damages (in response she asserted she was seeking over $75,000) and tied asserted harms to alleged federal crimes and insurer conduct.
Defendant Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The magistrate judge treated the 12(b)(1) challenge as a facial attack and evaluated the complaint (and undisputed facts) for jurisdictional sufficiency.
The magistrate recommended granting dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Searcy failed to establish complete diversity or a cognizable federal-question basis and lacked standing to press federal criminal violations as a private plaintiff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction via diversity (28 U.S.C. § 1332)	Searcy seeks over $75,000 in damages	Progressive: plaintiff did not plead complete diversity or properly allege domicile	Court: Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction—amount/complete diversity not adequately established
Federal-question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) based on alleged federal hate crime/perjury	Claims invoke federal criminal statutes and thus federal jurisdiction	Prosecutorial discretion means private parties lack standing to enforce criminal statutes	Court: No federal-question jurisdiction; private enforcement of federal crimes not permitted
Viability of civil claims grounded in alleged violations of federal criminal statutes	Searcy effectively seeks civil relief under criminal statutes	Progressive: criminal statutes generally provide no private right of action	Court: Plaintiff fails to identify a private cause of action; cannot rely on criminal statutes to create federal civil jurisdiction
Sufficiency of pleadings for jurisdictional facts	Complaint and response assert facts about the incident and damages	Progressive: jurisdictional facts (domicile, complete diversity) not distinctly and affirmatively alleged	Court: Jurisdictional pleading deficiency requires dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1)

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; jurisdiction must be authorized by Constitution or statute)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal jurisdictional limits and requirements for ancillary jurisdiction)
Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001) (Rule 12(b)(1) attack should be resolved before merits; plaintiff bears burden to prove jurisdiction)
Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2001) (party seeking federal forum bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
Borden v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2009) (federal-question jurisdiction requires that the federal issue be substantial and necessarily raised)
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (test for federal jurisdiction over state-law claims that turn on substantial federal issues)
Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (private citizen lacks standing to compel federal criminal prosecution)
United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (prosecutorial discretion and structural limits on judicial control over criminal prosecutions)
Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2009) (basis for diversity jurisdiction must be distinctly and affirmatively alleged)
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (requirements and effect of objections to magistrate judge findings)