Buck v. Tenstreet

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN BUCK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:23-CV-01258-SPM

)

TENSTREET, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on review of the amended Civil Complaint filed by self-

represented plaintiff Christopher Stephen Buck. ECF No. 5. For the reasons discussed below, the

Court directs plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Background

Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who submitted a Civil Complaint on October 5, 2023

against defendant Tenstreet, an employment application company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. See

ECF No. 1 at 2. In the jurisdictional section of the complaint, plaintiff alleged he was bringing this

action pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal

Tort Claims Act, and the “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration/DOT 49 CFR.” Id. at 3.

He also appeared to be asserting diversity jurisdiction as he claimed he was a citizen of Missouri,

defendant was a citizen of “all 50 states (North America),” and the amount in controversy was

“over $75,000.” Id. at 4.

In the section of the form complaint to provide his Statement of Claim, plaintiff wrote in

its entirety:

DEFENDANTS NEGLIGENCE VIOLATED MULTIPLE FEDERAL

STATUTES, BEGINING IN 07/2022 - CURRENT TIME = AS OF TODAY

EMPLOMENT APPLICATION, IN MULPILE LOCATIONS ACROSS THEE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INJURIES INCLUDE PAIN & SUFFERING,

DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER AND LOSS OF INCOME.

Id. at 5 (errors in original). For relief, plaintiff sought “$35 million, so they don’t make the same

mistake again.” Id. at 6.

On October 12, 2023, the Court reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and directed him to file an

amended complaint to properly allege federal jurisdiction and to provide a statement of claim in

compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 4. The Court explained that he

failed to show federal question jurisdiction because the complaint was devoid of allegations related

to how defendant was liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Americans with Disabilities

Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Motor Carrier Safety Act. Id. at 4 (quoting Northwest

South Dakota Production Credit Ass’n v. Smith, 784 F.2d 323, 325 (8th Cir. 1986) (“A non-

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

jurisdiction.”); Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 407 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2005) (“If the

asserted basis of federal jurisdiction is patently meritless, then dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is

appropriate.”)). The Court also determined that plaintiff failed to properly allege diversity

jurisdiction. Id. at 4-5. It did not appear from the face of the complaint that the parties were diverse,

and the amount in controversy was based on little to no facts. Id.

Because plaintiff did not assert how defendant was liable under any of the four federal

statutes and did not properly assert the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy,

the Court was unable to determine whether this Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this

matter.

Amended Complaint

Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint on October 26, 2023. ECF No. 5. Under the

section designated to provide his basis of federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff lists the same four

and defendant is a citizen of Oklahoma. Id. at 4. He does not state the amount of controversy in

the jurisdiction section of the complaint, but later writes he is seeking $35 million for the reason

that “there were 533 total FCRA cases [in] 2013 with awarded damages totaling $1.5 billion” and

over $14 billion dollars in awards under FCRA in 2016. Id. at 6.

Plaintiff’s statement of the claim is as follows in its entirety:

i’ve been violated!= FCRA, ADA, TFTCA and FMCSA/DOT, Tenstreet through

there business practices, which I’m a part of, because there online employment

software application, is widely used in the industry! i cannot remove my info from

their website, or talk to a human/customer service rep about possible mistake i made

on application to correct! there is no accountability or thoroughly thought out

guidelines for protecting the consumer!

07/2022 to current time my injuries and relationship with tenstreet have ocurred,

ive had multiple possible employers who use this service and they were located in

Nebraska and michigan. ijuries suffered!= loss of income, pain & suffering (mental

anguish) and defamation (this is were I got the TFTCA from, now i would never

insult the court by using AI for my case, but i did ask google what federal law/act

protected against defamation)!

FMCSA/DOT told the industry, companys supplying the CDL drivers with newhire

applications (im sure the court recognizes that CLD apps are more complicated than

the average worker’s app due to federal.

ing ever CDL holders substance abuse history in america, FMCSA’s drug and

alcohol clearinghouse, will have been up and running for 3 years as of 01/06/2023!

Guess they figured 3 years was adaquit time for every driver and employer in the

country to get enrolled in the new computer data base (clearinghouse), and question

of past substance abuse history on application is no longer appropriate!

Id. at 5, 7.1

Plaintiff describes his injuries as “pain and suffering, loss of income, defamation and

pun[i]tive.” Id. at 5.

Legal Standard

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction to hear cases

involving the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and cases

where diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court has diversity jurisdiction

over cases where the parties reside in different states and where the amount in controversy is more

than $75,000. The amount in controversy is to be ascertained from the complaint itself. Horton v.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 353 (1961).

“In every federal case the court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction before it turns to

the merits of other legal arguments.” Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 445 F.3d 1046,

1050 (8th Cir. 2006). The Court has the duty to determine its jurisdiction and to raise the issue of

subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, if necessary. See City of Kansas City, Mo. v. Yarco Co., Inc.,

625 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir. 2010). The Court must dismiss any action over which it determines

that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

B. Initial Review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma

pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2 To

state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere

possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining whether

a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing

true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir.

2016). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating

the court must accept factual allegations in the complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as

true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).

When reviewing a self-represented complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it

the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal

construction” means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should

construe the plaintiff’s complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within

the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even

self-represented complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a

matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Stone v. Harry,

364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts

that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger

complaint”). In addition, affording a self-represented complaint the benefit of a liberal construction

does not mean that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse

mistakes by those who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113

(1993).

Discussion

Plaintiff’s amended complaint has failed to address the Court’s concern for whether it has

subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. As such, the Court will direct plaintiff to show cause

as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3).

complaint, he has failed to provide any plausible factual basis for how the Fair Credit Reporting

Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Motor Carrier

Safety Act were allegedly violated by defendant. To show federal question jurisdiction, the

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). Here, for example, plaintiff does not point

to a specific provision from each of the four statutes to indicate what federal law was violated, nor

does he provide non-conclusory facts as to what defendant actually did or failed to do in order to

be subject to liability. “A court does not obtain subject-matter jurisdiction just because a plaintiff

raises a federal question in his or her complaint. 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). No federal question is presented on the face of

plaintiff’s amended complaint.

As for diversity of citizenship, his amended complaint does not provide an adequate

foundation for plaintiff’s belief that his damages are sufficient to meet the amount in controversy

requirement. The amount in controversy is to be ascertained from the complaint itself. Horton, 367

U.S. at 353. When the Court questions whether the amount alleged is legitimate, “the party

invoking federal jurisdiction must prove the requisite amount by a preponderance of the evidence.”

State of Mo. ex rel. Pemiscot Cnty., Mo. v. W. Sur. Co., 51 F.3d 170, 173 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing

McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). Here, not only is plaintiff’s

amended complaint unclear on what defendant did or failed to do, his request for $35 million

appears to be entirely based on his research of awards from “FCRA cases” in 2013 and 2016. See

ECF No. 5 at 6. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations regarding the amount in controversy do not

satisfy his burden of proving the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of evidence. See e.g.,

allegations of “severe emotional distress . . . including but not limited to substantial fright,

extraordinary stress, anxiety and apprehension culminating in severe damages and pain and

suffering . . . insufficient to establish the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the

evidence”); OnePoint Sols., LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 348 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal citation

omitted) (punitive damages can be included but “the existence of the required amount must be

supported by competent proof.”).

Order to Show Cause

Plaintiff has the burden of proving that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See V S

Ltd. P’ship v. Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev., 235 F.3d at 1109, 1112 (8th Cir. 2000). If the

Court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action must be

dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In this case, plaintiff has not established that the Court

has subject matter jurisdiction, meaning that the case is subject to dismissal without prejudice.

However, as plaintiff is a self-represented litigant, he will be given an opportunity to show cause

as to why his case should not be dismissed. If plaintiff does not file a response to this Order within

twenty-one (21) days, this case will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff must show cause no later than twenty-one (21)

days from the date of this Order as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with this Order could result in the dismissal of

this action, without prejudice and without further notice.

Vy

SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated this 7th day of November, 2023.

-8-