Dodson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

VANCE R DODSON JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 3:26-CV-93-KAC-DCP

v. )

)

BAIL BOURNEII and JERNIGAN )

& SON FUNERAL HOME, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Rules of this

Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 2] and his Applications to Proceed in District Court without

Prepaying Fees or Costs [Docs. 1, 8]. For the reasons more fully stated below, the Court HOLDS

IN ABEYANCE Plaintiff’s Applications [Docs. 1, 8].

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), the Court is required to screen

complaints. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. To accomplish this end, the Court must evaluate the litigant’s

indigence, but notwithstanding indigence, a court must dismiss a matter under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) if [it] determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who

is immune from such relief.” To survive an initial review, a complaint “must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S.544, 570 (2007)).

Specifically, under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading must

provide:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction . . .;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleading

is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the

alternative or different types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)–(3). Otherwise, the complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)

for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Courts also

have a continuing duty to ensure that jurisdiction exists to hear the case. Answers in Genesis, Inc.

v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[F]ederal courts have a duty

to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua

sponte.” (citations omitted)). The Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally and hold

them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Spotts v. United States,

429 F.3d 248, 250 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).

A. Summary of the Complaint

Plaintiff names as Defendants Bail Bourneii (“Defendant Bourneii”) and Jernigan & Son

Funeral Home [Doc. 2 p. 1]. Plaintiff’s wife passed away on February 28, 2025 [Id. at 2].

According to Plaintiff, he signed a document titled “Authorization for Cremation & [D]isposition

some time in March 2025” [Id.]. Plaintiff states that once his “wife[‘s] remains and death certificate

came back,” the funeral home and director did not contact him [Id.]. Plaintiff alleges that after he

made repeated contact with them, Defendant Bourneii gave him his wife’s death certificate, but

told him that her remains hadn’t come yet and to come back next week [Id.]. After seven to eight

weeks, Plaintiff contacted the Board of the Funeral Home and was told by Defendant Bourneii that

he had given his wife’s remains to her kids, but that he would get the remains back. Plaintiff

contends that he was never given his wife’s remains and that it has caused him “a lot of pain and

suffering,” and that he is now on medication as a result [Id.].

Plaintiff asserts claims of fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,

intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional mishandling of a corpse, and asks for

damages in the amount of $1,500,000 [Id. at 3]. Plaintiff also requests suspension of Defendant

Bourneii’s license and the “fraud ownership of the funeral business” [Id.].

B. Review

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. EBI-Detroit, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 279 F. App’x

340, 344 (6th Cir. 2008). “Generally speaking, the Constitution and Congress have given federal

courts authority to hear a case only when the case raises a federal question or when diversity of

citizenship exists between the parties.” McGhee v. Light, 384 F. Supp. 3d 894, 896 (S.D. Ohio

2019) (quoting EBI-Detroit, Inc., 279 F. App’x at 344). Specifically, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “The

district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

laws, or treaties of the United States.”). In addition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), “The

district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between -- citizens of

different States.”

Here, Plaintiff’s claims of fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,

intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional mishandling of a corpse are state law

claims. Accordingly, the Court can discern no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Next, turning to diversity jurisdiction, federal courts have jurisdiction when there is

diversity of citizenship, meaning the parties are “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a)(1). Diversity of citizenship exists where (1) the plaintiff is a citizen of one state and all

of the defendants are citizens of other states, and (2) the amount in controversy is more than

$75,000. See Exact Software N. Am., Inc. v. DeMoisey, 718 F.3d 535, 541 (6th Cir. 2013). A

plaintiff must affirmatively allege the facts showing the existence of jurisdiction in the Complaint.

McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 183 (1936); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Here,

Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to show that diversity of citizenship exists. Plaintiff reflects

that he is a resident of Tennessee and that Defendant Jernigan & Son Funeral Home is a business

based out of Knoxville, Tennessee [Doc. 2 pp. 1–2]. While Plaintiff does not provide an address

for Defendant Bourneii, complete diversity is required for jurisdiction under § 1332(a). Because

Plaintiff and Defendant Jernigan & Son Funeral Home are both residents of Tennessee, the Court

may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. See Caudill v. North Am. Media Corp., 200

F.3d 914, 916 (6th Cir. 2000).

Instead of recommending dismissal, the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to

amend his Complaint in light of his pro se status. In their amended complaint, Plaintiff shall

provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting his claims. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s amended complaint should provide, to the extent applicable, the following

details:

a) the names, titles, and residency of all [defendants if known];

b) . . . all relevant events, stating the facts that support Plaintiff’s

case including what each defendant did or failed to do;

c) . . . the dates and times of each relevant event or, if not known,

the approximate date and time of each relevant event;

d) . . . the location where each relevant event occurred;

e) . . . how each defendant’s acts or omissions violated Plaintiff’s

rights and . . . the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and

f) ... what relief Plaintiff seeks from the Court, such as money

damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief.

Polite v. VIP Cmty. Servs., No. 20-CV-7631, 2020 WL 6064297, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020).

“Because Plaintiffs amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original

complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wishes to maintain must be included in the amended

complaint.” /d.; see also E.D. Tenn. L.R. 15.1 (explaining that an amended complaint cannot

incorporate the original complaint by reference). Plaintiff SHALL file his amended complaint on

or before September 30, 2026.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

Debra C. Poplin

United States Magistrate Judge