Kyle Jordan Smith v. Super Ego Holdings, LLC, MHC Kenworth and Affiliates, Rex Trucking, Crena Logistics, Euro Freight Services, Southern Pride Towing, Chris 24/7 Towing, John Does

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopts a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismisses the action without prejudice and without issuance or service of process. The court concludes that the pro se plaintiff failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction under either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction and that the asserted federal claims were inadequately pleaded. The court overrules the plaintiff’s objections, denies emergency relief and further leave to amend, and denies pending motions as moot.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because he did not adequately plead the citizenship of the LLC defendants and other defendants, and the allegations did not establish complete diversity.
2. Plaintiff failed to establish federal-question jurisdiction because the Amended Complaint did not plead facts sufficient to state a cognizable federal claim under the statutes invoked.
3. The court may dismiss an in forma pauperis action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction before issuance and service of process.
4. Plaintiff was not entitled to emergency relief because he had not established subject matter jurisdiction, and Rule 65(b) did not provide an independent jurisdictional basis.
5. Further leave to amend was denied because Plaintiff had already been given an opportunity to amend and the remaining jurisdictional defects could not be cured by the conclusory allegations presented.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Amended Complaint established federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2. Whether the Amended Complaint established federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by pleading a cognizable federal claim.
3. Whether the action could be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction before issuance and service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
4. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to emergency relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).
5. Whether Plaintiff should receive further leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed