Edith Peterson v. Domingo Oscar Ramirez , 428 F. App'x 908 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12692 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 2, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 9:09-cv-81425-KLR
EDITH PETERSON,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff–Appellant,
versus
DOMINGO OSCAR RAMIREZ,
DIEGO RAMIREZ,
RICHARD ROGERSON,
JANET GOODENOW,
AFFORDABLE HOMES OF PALM BEACH, INC., et al,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants–Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 2, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Edith Peterson, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against numerous
defendants stating several causes of action under state law and claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed her suit because it found that it did not
have subject-matter jurisdiction on any of the grounds Peterson alleged in her
complaint. Peterson appeals and asks that we reinstate her lawsuit. Because we
agree with the district court that there is no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction,
we affirm.
We review an order dismissing a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
de novo. Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009).
And we liberally construe pro se pleadings. H & R Block E. Enters. v. Morris, 606
F.3d 1285, 1288 n.1 (11th Cir. 2010).
Peterson alleges two bases for federal jurisdiction. She first contends that
federal jurisdiction exists because the parties have diverse citizenship and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Second, she alleges
federal-question jurisdiction based on her § 1983 claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
In order for diversity jurisdiction to exist, there must be complete diversity
of citizenship. Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317, 1320 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). That
2
means that the plaintiff’s citizenship must be different from that of each of the
defendants. If even one defendant’s citizenship is the same as the plaintiff’s there
can be no diversity jurisdiction. Peterson acknowledges that a number of the
defendants are (like her) citizens of Florida. Accordingly, because Peterson and
some of the defendants share the same citizenship there was not diversity
jurisdiction.
Peterson also claims that there is federal-question jurisdiction as she has
sued several of the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating her 14th
Amendment rights.
Merely asserting a federal cause of action is not enough to establish federal-
question jurisdiction. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Kraus-Anderson
Constr. Co., 607 F.3d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010). Sometimes, a case may be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is clear the claims on which
jurisdiction is based are patently without merit. McGinnis v. Ingram Equip., Co.,
918 F.2d 1491, 1494 (11th Cir. 1990) (en banc). This is such a case.
Section 1983 claims can only be asserted against state actors. Am. Mfgs.
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999). But it is not clear from
Peterson’s complaint that any of the defendants in this case are state actors.
Indeed, nothing in the complaint that suggests that they are. As the Supreme
3
Court has said, “the under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its
reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here there is no suggestion of
anything other than merely private conduct, thus even were Peterson’s claims
viable under some state law theory of recovery, they are not viable under § 1983.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Peterson’s suit
because there was no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
4