Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Haband

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

October 30, 2017

CHARMANE SMITH, Plaintiff
v.
HABAND, Defendant

          Carlson Magistrate Judge

          MEMORANDUM

          JAMES M. MUNLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         Before the court for disposition are Plaintiff Charmane Smith's (hereinafter “plaintiff”) objections (Doc. 3) to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's report and recommendation (Doc. 2) (hereinafter “R&R”) in the above-captioned case. The docket indicates no service of plaintiff's pro se complaint (Doc. 1) upon Defendant Haband (hereinafter “defendant”), a Pennsylvania business. The matter is ripe for disposition.

         Background

         Plaintiff filed her complaint on September 15, 2017 captioned as an application for injunction under Fed R. Civ. P. 65(a). (Doc. 1 at 1.) In it, she expresses dissatisfaction with a mail order placed with defendant. (Doc. 1 at 2 ¶ 1). Plaintiff apparently ordered items of clothing, and then returned them to defendant, (Doc. 1 at 2 ¶ 1), requesting instead a pair of boots in exchange. (Doc. 1 at 1 ¶ 3). Alleging the boots were never received, (Doc. 1 at 2 ¶ 1), the complaint seeks damages in the amount of $35.96, plus costs, and two credit cards, one from Haband and one from “Blair, ” each with zero percent APR[1] and a $1, 500.00 credit limit. (Doc. 1 at 1 ¶ 1-4.)

         Magistrate Judge Carlson issued a comprehensive R&R, and because there is no indication that plaintiff has paid the filing fee and she apparently seeks in forma pauperis status, the R&R granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The R&R recommends that we dismiss the state law claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in federal court, without prejudice to plaintiff filing this action in the appropriate Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. (R&R at 9-10.) See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). For the reasons that follow, we will adopt Magistrate Judge Carlson's R&R.

         Jurisdiction

         Our subject matter jurisdiction over this case is in question and will be discussed below.

         Standard of review

         When determining the disposition of objections to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report against which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also Sullivan v. Cuyler, 723 F.2d 1077, 1085 (3d Cir. 1983). We may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 877 (3d Cir. 1987).

         Courts are required to liberally construe pro se litigant's pleadings. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court has held that pro se complaints should be held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyer.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). This leniency, however, has its limits and litigants, even those proceeding pro se, “cannot flout procedural rules - they must abide by the same rules that apply to other litigants.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)).

         Discussion

         Federal district courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, have a continuing duty to satisfy themselves of jurisdiction before addressing the merits of the case. Packard v. Provident Nat'l Bank, 994 F.2d 1039, 1049 (3d Cir. 1993) cert. denied sub nom Upp v. Mellon Bank, N.A., 510 U.S. 964 (1993). Moreover, federal courts have the obligation to address the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Meritcare, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 166 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir. 1999); see generally Nelson v. Keefer, 451 F.2d 289, 293-95 (3d Cir. 1971) (finding that the federal judiciary has been too cautious in addressing the large number of cases which do not belong in federal courts). If 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).

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, jurisdiction is proper in federal district court where the action involves citizens of different states and an amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, in excess of $75, 000.00. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332(a). In the absence of such diversity, jurisdiction can be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.