Zuhayr El v. Marriott International, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

AFFAN SIRAJ ZUHAYR EL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:22-cv-00236-HEA

)

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On March 1, 2022, plaintiff was

ordered to either file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the entire filing fee.

(Docket No. 2). He was also directed to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff was given thirty days in which to comply. He has not

responded. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this action without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Background

Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who filed a civil action against Marriot International,

Inc. on February 8, 2022. (Docket No. 1). The complaint contained allegations that plaintiff

suffered property damage to his vehicle, which was parked in a “secured[,] enclosed [and] gated

parking lot” at the Residence Inn Marriott in St. Louis, Missouri. (Docket No. 1 at 4; Docket No.

1-2 at 3). With regard to jurisdiction, he specifically asserted that this Court had federal question

jurisdiction for the following reasons, presented in their entirety:

The Supreme Law of this land being the United States Republic

Constitution 1791/1836 (6th Amendment), the Treaty of Peace and

Friendship of 1786/1836, The Zodiac Constitution ©AA222141/

Library of Congress, Washington, District of Columbia, the

Commerce Clause of the Constitution (art. I, § 8) Cl.3), the Treaty

Clause (art. II, §2, cl.2).

(Docket No. 1 at 3). Based on the damage to his vehicle, plaintiff sought total damages in the

amount of $45,000. (Docket No. 1 at 5; Docket No. 1-2 at 4).

At the time he filed his complaint, plaintiff did not pay the filing fee. He also failed to file

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On March 1, 2022, the Court directed plaintiff to either file a motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis or pay the entire filing fee. (Docket No. 2). He was given thirty days to comply,

and advised that his failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice

and without further notice. The deadline for plaintiff to comply was March 31, 2022.

In that same order, the Court directed plaintiff to show cause as to why his complaint should

not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court noted that despite

plaintiff’s allegations, no federal question appeared on the face of his complaint. The Court ordered

plaintiff to show cause within thirty days as to why his complaint should not be dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s response was due on or before March 31, 2022.

Discussion

On March 1, 2022, plaintiff was directed to either file a motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. He was also ordered to show cause as to why his case

should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has failed to comply.

Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.

A. Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in this case. The Court gave him thirty days in which to cure this deficiency, and advised

him that the failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice and

without further notice. Plaintiff’s response was due on or before March 31, 2022. Despite being

given substantially more than thirty days, he has failed to either file a motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff has also not sought an extension of time in which

to comply.

Despite plaintiff’s status as a self-represented litigant, he is not excused “from complying

with a court’s orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” See Ackra Direct Marketing

Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996). Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, an action may be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b). This rule applies to self-represented litigants. See Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801,

803 (8th Cir. 1986) (stating that district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to

comply with a court order on its own initiative).

Because plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order of March 1, 2022 to either file a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, and has not sought an extension

of time in which to comply, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. See Dudley v.

Miles, 597 Fed. Appx. 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (affirming district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) dismissal

for failure to comply with a court order, where plaintiff failed to follow an order to file an amended

complaint, “[d]espite warnings that dismissal could result from his failure to do so”).

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Plaintiff was also ordered to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s power to decide a

certain class of cases. LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006). “Federal

courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized by Article

III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.” Bender v.

Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). See also Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251,

256 (2013) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power

authorized by Constitution and statute”).

The presence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold requirement that must be assured

in every federal case. Kronholm v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 915 F.2d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 1990).

See also Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) (“The threshold requirement

in every federal case is jurisdiction and we have admonished the district court to be attentive to a

satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements in all cases”). To that end, the issue of subject matter

jurisdiction may be raised at any time, by any party or the court. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo.,

567 F.3d 976, 982 (8th Cir. 2009). If at any time the Court determines that it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the action must be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over both federal question cases and

diversity of citizenship cases. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Court of Spirit Lake Indian

Reservation, 495 F.3d 1017, 1020 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking

if neither diversity of citizenship nor federal question jurisdiction applies); and McLaurin v. Prater,

30 F.3d 982, 984-85 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that Congress has directed that district courts shall

have jurisdiction in both federal question and diversity cases). The burden of proving subject

matter jurisdiction belongs to the plaintiff. V S Ltd. P’ship v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 235

F.3d 1109, 1112 (8th Cir. 2000).

i. Federal Question Jurisdiction

In this case, plaintiff explicitly asserted that the Court had federal question jurisdiction.

Federal question jurisdiction gives district courts “original jurisdiction over civil actions arising

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa

City Ry. Co., 785 F.3d 1182, 1188 (8th Cir. 2015). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether a claim

arises under federal law is determined by reference to the “well-pleaded complaint.” Great Lakes

Gas Transmission Ltd. P’ship v. Essar Steel Minn. LLC, 843 F.3d 325, 329 (8th Cir. 2016). The

well-pleaded complaint rule provides that jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

presented on the face of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Markham v. Wertin, 861 F.3d

748, 754 (8th Cir. 2017). See also Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938, 743 F.3d 1134, 1139

(8th Cir. 2014) (“Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a federal question must exist on the face

of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint in order to establish federal question subject matter

jurisdiction”).

Plaintiff’s complaint must establish “either that federal law creates the cause of action or

that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of

federal law.” Williams v. Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 1998). See also Northwest South

Dakota Production Credit Ass’n v. Smith, 784 F.2d 323, 325 (8th Cir. 1986) (stating that “[a] non-

frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute is sufficient to invoke federal question

jurisdiction”). “If the asserted basis of federal jurisdiction is patently meritless, then dismissal for

lack of jurisdiction is appropriate.” Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 407 F.3d 905, 907 (8th

Cir. 2005).

To support the proposition that the Court had federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff

referenced various treaties and the alleged violation of his constitutional rights. The Court notes

that a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “arises under federal law and will support

federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331.” Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock, Ark.,

784 F.3d 479, 483 (8th Cir. 2015). However, as the Court explained in its March 1, 2022 order,

plaintiff had presented no factual allegations demonstrating how his constitutional rights were

implicated in this case.

In particular, the sole defendant in this case is Marriott International, Inc., which is a private

corporation. The allegations appear to suggest that Marriott did not properly secure its parking lot,

leading to plaintiff’s car being damaged. These facts do not demonstrate the violation of a

constitutional right, the violation of a treaty, or show that Marriott is a state actor or acting under

color of state law. Therefore, plaintiff has not adequately shown the existence of federal question

jurisdiction.

ii. Diversity Jurisdiction

Plaintiff does not assert the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Even if he had, the Court

notes that such jurisdiction has not been demonstrated by the allegations in the complaint. “Under

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), district courts have original diversity jurisdiction over civil actions when the

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, without considering interest and costs, and when the

citizenship of each plaintiff is different from the citizenship of each defendant.” Ryan ex rel. Ryan

v. Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001).

With regard to the amount in controversy, a complaint making a good faith allegation of

the jurisdictional amount is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Universal Crop

Prot. All., LLC, 620 F.3d 926, 931 (8th Cir. 2010). However, a “complaint will be dismissed if it

appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.” Id. See

also Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883, 884 (8th Cir. 2002). “The legal certainty standard is met where

the legal impossibility of recovery is so certain as virtually to negative the plaintiff’s good faith in

asserting the claim.” Peterson v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 867 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2017).

With regard to diversity of the parties, “[c]omplete diversity of citizenship exists where no

defendant holds citizenship in the same state where any plaintiff holds citizenship.” OnePoint

Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007). Diversity jurisdiction requires that

the parties be citizens of different states, not merely residents. Sanders, 823 F.2d at 216. For

purposes of diversity, state citizenship “requires an individual’s physical presence in the state

coupled with an indefinite intention there to remain.” Blakemore v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 789

F.2d 616, 618 (8th Cir. 1986).

In this case, plaintiff and defendant are alleged to be citizens of different states.

Nevertheless, plaintiff is seeking only $45,000 in damages, which is below the $75,000 threshold.

As the amount in controversy fails to reach the jurisdictional requirement, plaintiff has not shown

that the Court has diversity jurisdiction.

iii. Failure to Submit Show Cause Response

The Court gave plaintiff the opportunity to show cause as to why his case should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He was directed to submit a response within thirty

days. Far more than thirty days have elapsed, and plaintiff has failed to file a show cause response,

and has failed to seek an extension of time in which to comply. Therefore, for the reasons discussed

above, plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate order of dismissal will be entered

herewith.

Dated this 11™ day of May, 2022. Zs

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE