Dupre v. University Health ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30076
Conference Calendar
CHERYL AMBROSE DUPRE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM L.C.,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-1712-L
- - - - - - - - - -
August 23, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cheryl A. Dupre appeals from the district court’s dismissal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of her pro se complaint,
in which she alleged that the University Healthcare System L.C.
had defamed her. Dupre contends that she “should not have been
assigned filing a motion for jurisdiction whereas a crime of
malice was committed.” She also asserts that “the case was
dismissed on grounds that are untrue and unfair.”
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Howery
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 915 (5th Cir. 2001), petition
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-30076
-2-
for cert. filed, (U.S. July 23, 2001) (No. 01-152). In the
absence of either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, an
action must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (when it
appears that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court shall dismiss the action); see also Nauru Phosphate
Royalties, Inc. v. Drago Daic Interests, Inc., 138 F.3d 160, 163
n.1 (5th Cir. 1998). The burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal forum.
Howery, 243 F.3d at 915. A district court’s dismissal for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Musslewhite
v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1994).
There is no complete diversity because both parties are
residents of Louisiana. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Getty Oil Corp. v.
Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1258-59 (5th Cir. 1988). Nor
does Dupre raise in her complaint any question of federal or
constitutional law. The dismissal for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction was thus not error. This appeal is without arguable
merit, is frivolous, and is dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.