Ronald Mays v. McCalla Reymer Leifert Pierce, et al.

Summary

The magistrate judge recommends dismissing Ronald Mays’s amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concludes that the pleading fails to establish federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, does not adequately state claims or facts as required by the court’s prior order, and does not plausibly allege that the private foreclosure-related defendants acted under color of state law. Objections were permitted by March 30, 2026.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint failed to establish federal question jurisdiction because it merely referenced the Constitution, federal law, and federally protected rights without identifying a specific federal claim or alleging facts showing that a federal question appeared on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.
2. The amended complaint did not comply with the court's order because it lacked a factual section, separately numbered claims, identification of the causes of action, and specific allegations describing each defendant's conduct, the resulting harm, and when and where the conduct occurred.
3. Because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the action should be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint established federal question jurisdiction.
2. Whether the amended complaint complied with the court's order requiring a factual statement, separately numbered causes of action, and identification of the legal basis for each claim.
3. Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

dismissed