Opinion
CV422-098
10-05-2022
ANGELA NAILS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAVANNAH POLICE DEPARTMENT[1], et. al., Defendants.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Angela Nails, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint against the City of Savannah Police Department and one of its police officers. See generally doc. 1. She also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. 4. It appears from her application that she lacks sufficient resources to prepay the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS her leave to proceed IFP. Doc. 4. However, a review of her Complaint reveals that, like many others she has filed, it is frivolous and fails to state a claim and should be DISMISSED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Taliaferro v. United States, 677 Fed.Appx. 536, 537 (11th Cir. 2017); see also Nails v. Davis, CV422-110, doc. 15 at 3-5 (S.D. Ga. July 11, 2022) (noting Nails' “history of vexatious and frivolous litigation” and imposing filing restrictions to protect the Court).
Nails has also unilaterally filed a Rule 26(f) report. Doc. 5. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) requires the parties to confer on a discovery schedule and submit a written report of their agreement to the Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f). Such report, therefore, cannot be submitted without the involvement of all parties. Nails' filing, in addition to being incomplete, is not signed by a representative of defendant. See doc. 5 at 6. In fact, she concedes that the defendants have not yet been served. See id. at 5. Therefore, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE the improper unilateral Rule 26(f) Report. Doc. 5.
I. BACKGROUND
Nails has taken issue with the way Officer Strive, an officer with the Savannah Police Department, filled out a police report. See generally doc. 1. Other than confusingly referencing various administrative policies regarding police reports, it is not clear what claim she intends to bring. Id. No matter her desire, it is clear that this federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff is already aware that this Court must have subject-matter jurisdiction to consider her claims. See, e.g., Nails v. Hilliard, CV421-364, doc. 6 at 2-5 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2022) (explaining the requirements of subject matter jurisdiction). As the Court has exhaustively explained to her, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), and “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). She has not carried her burden of pleading the grounds on which the Court might assert jurisdiction over the asserted claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1); see also Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2010) (“The party commencing suit in federal court . . . has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting the existence of federal jurisdiction.”); Beavers v. A.O. Smith Elec. Prods. Co., 265 Fed.Appx. 772, 777 (11th Cir. 2008) (“The plaintiff[ ], as the party asserting diversity jurisdiction, [has] the burden to ‘affirmatively allege facts demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction.'” (quoting Taylor v. Appelton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)).
The Court does not have jurisdiction because Nails has not established a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity of the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. She concedes that her case does not arise under this Court's diversity jurisdiction, since the parties all live in the same state, but then suggests that the Court has jurisdiction because her damages exceed $75,000. Doc. 1 at 1. She is incorrect.
Federal question jurisdiction exists if a civil action arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. When examining assertions of federal question jurisdiction, the Court must rely upon the well-pleaded complaint. Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F.3d 1290, 1295 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)). Even adopting a liberal reading of her Complaint, the Court cannot discern any federal statute that might be invoked by the alleged facts. Cf. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers (internal quotations omitted)). Plaintiff, therefore, has not adequately pleaded federal question jurisdiction.
She also affirmatively disclaims diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Her disclaimer notwithstanding, Nails' pleading contradicts the possibility of an assertion of diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires all parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Typically, the Court will accept a damage claim offered by a party in good faith. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938) (“The rule governing dismissal for want of jurisdiction in cases brought in the federal court is that, unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.”). In this case, the Court cannot affirmatively find that Nails' representation that her damages exceed $75,000 is in good faith. See id. at 289 (When considering whether a purported damages amount is made in good faith, the Court must determine to “legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.”). Regardless of the damages sought, Nails concedes that the parties are not diverse. See doc. 1 at 1. Diversity jurisdiction requires that “no defendant . . . be a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.” MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Grp., LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 1332). Based on Nails' own concession, she cannot plausibly establish this Court's diversity jurisdiction.
By now, Nails should be all too familiar with the parameters of this Court's jurisdiction. Including this one, Nails has filed eleven cases in this Court since November 2020. See Nails v. Doing Bus. as Nails, MC420-009 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 3, 2020); Nails v. City Chatham Cnty. Tax Comm'n, CV421-032 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2021); Nails v. Chatham Cnty. Tax Comm'n, CV421-033 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 3, 2021); Nails v. Savannah Plastic Surgery, et al., CV421-153 (S.D. Ga. May 14, 2021); Nails v. Chatham Cnty. Sheriff's Office, CV421-158 (S.D. Ga. May 19, 2021); Nails v. Hilliard, CV421-364 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 27, 2021); Nails v. Leeds Gate Townhouse Ass'n, CV422-078 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 4, 2022); Nails v. St. Joseph Candler Hosp., CV422-077 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 4, 2022); Nails v. FNU LNU, CV422-103 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2022); Nails v. Davis, CV422-110 (S.D. Ga. April 21, 2022). Four of her cases have already been dismissed for the same reason this claim is faulty-her failure to allege a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. See Nails v. City Chatham Cnty. Tax Comm'n, CV421-033, doc. 6 (S.D. Ga. June 2, 2021) adopted doc. 8 (S.D. Ga. June 14, 2021) (dismissing complaint for failure to establish jurisdiction); Nails v. Chatham Cnty. Tax Comm'n, CV421-033, doc. 6 (S.D. Ga. June 2, 2021) adopted doc. 8 (S.D. Ga. June 14, 2021) (dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for failure to establish jurisdiction); Nails v. FNU LNU, CV422-103, doc. 13 at 3 (S.D. Ga. May 2, 2022) (dismissing case after finding that Nails did not provide a “sufficient, non-frivolous basis” for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction); Nails v. Davis, CV422-110, doc. 15 at 2 (S.D. Ga. July 11, 2022) (dismissing complaint where facts pleaded were inconsistent with diversity jurisdiction and Plaintiff had identified no basis for the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction). She has been warned in others. See Nails v. Savannah Plastic Surgery, CV421-153, doc. 6 at 1-5 (S.D. Ga. May 21, 2021) (explaining the requirements of subject matter jurisdiction); Nails v. Hilliard, CV421-364, doc. 6 at 2-5 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2022) (same). Others have been dismissed on grounds that indicate Nails' general disregard for the Orders and rules of this Court. See Nails v. Doing Business as Nails, MC420-009 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2020) adopted (S.D. Ga. Nov. 24, 2020) (denying IFP motion and dismissing case for submitting application demonstrating sufficient assets to pay filing fee); Nails v. Chatham Cnty. Sheriff's Office, CV421-158 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2021) adopted (S.D. Ga. Sept. 13, 2021) (dismissing case for failure to comply with the Court's instructions).
As this Court has already recognized, Nails appears to file a federal lawsuit at the slightest inconvenience, ignoring this Court's prior admonishments about jurisdictional requirements. See Nails v. Davis, CV422-110, doc. 8 at 9 (S.D. Ga. May 9, 2022). For that reason, the Court implemented filing restrictions “to protect itself from Nails' disregard of its rules and orders.” Id. at 11 adopted by doc. 15. Although this case was filed prior to the Court's imposition of those restrictions, it reflects the same vexatious pattern of litigation. It should, therefore, be DISMISSED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
III. CONCLUSION
Nails' motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. Doc. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE her unilaterally filed Rule 26(f) report. Doc. 5. Her Complaint should be DISMISSED. Doc. 1.
This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 Fed.Appx. 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
SO ORDERED AND REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.