# Buck v. Tenstreet

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · December 12, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239640

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** December 12, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239640

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN BUCK, )
Plaintiff,
V. Case No. 4:23-CV-1258-SPM
TENSTREET,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. For the following reasons, this
action will be dismissed without prejudice.
On October 5, 2023, self-represented plaintiff Christopher Stephen Buck filed a Civil
Complaint against defendant Tenstreet, an employment application company. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff
indicated 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. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff stated defendant was a citizen of all fifty states. His statement
of claim consisted of one sentence in which he alleged that defendant was negligent from 2022 to
the present “through internet processies [sic] involving employment application[s].” /d. at 5.
On October 12, 2023, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 4. Upon such review, the Court
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. The complaint failed
to show federal question jurisdiction because it 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. The Court explained that it “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). The Court also determined that plaintiff failed to properly allege diversity jurisdiction
because 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. /d.
Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint on October 26, 2023. ECF No. 5. Under the
section designated to provide his basis for federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff listed the same
four federal statutes. He also asserted diversity jurisdiction, indicating he was a citizen of Missouri
and defendant was a citizen of Oklahoma. For relief, Plaintiff sought $35 million because “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. /d. at 6. The Statement of Claim read as follows:
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! 1 cannot remove my info from
their website, or talk to a human/customer service rep about possible mistake 1 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 1 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.!
On November 7, 2023, the Court reviewed the amended complaint and determined that it
failed to properly cure the pleading deficiencies found in the original complaint. ECF No. 8.
Although plaintiff listed four federal statutes under the jurisdictional section of the form complaint,
he again 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. He did not point to a specific provision from each of the four
statutes to indicate what federal law was violated, nor did he provide any non-conclusory facts as
to what defendant actually did or failed to do within the context of the federal statutes in order to
be subject to liability. As for diversity jurisdiction, his amended complaint did not provide an
adequate foundation for plaintiff's belief that his requested damages were sufficient to meet the
amount in controversy requirement.* Consequently, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause as
to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff had
twenty-one (21) days, or until November 28, 2023, to comply. He was warned that failure to timely
comply could result in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice and without further notice.
As of the date of this Memorandum and Order, plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s

' The text is quoted without correction of spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors.
2 When the Court questions whether the amount alleged is legitimate to support diversity jurisdiction, “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)).

order to show cause, nor has he sought additional time to do so. The Court gave plaintiff
meaningful notice of what was expected, cautioned him that his case could be dismissed if he
failed to timely comply, and gave him additional time to comply. Therefore, this action will be
dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiffs failure to comply with the Court’s November 7, 2023
Show Cause Order and his failure to prosecute his case.? See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Brown
v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has the power to dismiss an action
for the plaintiff's failure to comply with any court order); Dudley v. Miles, 597 F. App’x 392 (8th
Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal without prejudice where self-represented plaintiff
failed to file an amended complaint despite being cautioned that dismissal could result from failure
to do so).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF
No. 3] is DENIED as moot.

3 Even if this Court did not dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), the cause could not proceed as plaintiff
has not properly shown federal jurisdiction. “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).

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this LA day of December, 2023.

JOHW £ ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10239640. Public record. Not legal advice.