Akins v. Liberty County

• Decision Date: 15 February 2011
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-328
• Parties: FREDERICK RAY AKINS, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS, et at., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

FREDERICK RAY AKINS, Plaintiff,

v.LIBERTY COUNTY, TEXAS, et at., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-328

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SIGNED: February 15, 2011

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the court are Defendants Allen Youngblood ("Youngblood") and i-dineout.com's Motion to Dismiss (#7) as well as Defendants Trinity Valley Broadcasting Company ("Trinity Valley") and Bill Buchanan's ("Buchanan") Motion to Dismiss (#14). Both motions seek dismissal of Plaintiff Frederick Ray Akins's ("Akins") claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having reviewed the pending motions, the submissions of the parties, the pleadings, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that dismissal is warranted.

I. Background

On June 8, 2010, Akins filed the instant lawsuit against numerous defendants, including Liberty County, Texas; Liberty County Judge Phil Fitzgerald; the Liberty County Sheriff's Office; Liberty County Sheriff Henry Patterson; unnamed Liberty County Sheriff's Office employees; and Community Education Centers, Inc. (collectively, the "Liberty County Defedants"). Akins alleges that, while housed as an inmate at the Liberty County Correctional Facility between June 8, 2009, and June 12, 2009, he was subjected to constitutionally inadequate and unsanitary jail conditions and provided inadequate medical care. He seeks to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in additionto a number of state law tort theories, including negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.

Akins also proceeds against Defendants Youngblood, i-dineout.com, Trinity Valley, and Buchanan (collectively, the "Media Defendants"). Youngblood operates an online news website known as i-dineout.com, and Buchanan is an employee of Trinity Valley, a Texas corporation doing business as KSHN Radio. Akins claims that Trinity Valley and Buchanan published unspecified medical information "protected from unauthorized release by the HIPAA Act"¹ as well as defamatory statements regarding Akins's association with a militia group, criminal history, residency, and character. He further alleges that Youngblood displayed similar statements on i-dineout.com. Akins asserts causes of action against the Media Defendants for defamation, libel per se, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence in the handling of Akins's information, civil conspiracy, and vicarious liability.

On August 5, 2010, Youngblood and i-dineout.com filed a motion to dismiss Akins's claims on the bases that (1) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) Akins fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On August 13, 2010, Trinity Valley and Buchanan filed a separate motion to dismiss on the same grounds. Akins maintains that the court has federal question, diversity, and supplemental jurisdiction.²

II. Analysis

A. Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1)

A motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, absent jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution, lack the power to adjudicate claims. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Griffin v. Lee, 621 F.3d 380, 388 (5th Cir. 2010); Johnson v. United States, 460 F.3d 616, 621 n.6 (5th Cir. 2006); Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 993 (2001). Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction and are authorized to entertain causes of action only where a question of federal law is involved or where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005); McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 181 (5th Cir. 2005); Howery, 243 F.3d at 91415; Hart v. Bayer Corp., 199 F.3d 239, 246 (5th Cir. 2000). "'"A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case."'" CleanCOALition v. TXU Power, 536 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996))); see Krim v. PcOrder.com, Inc., 402 F.3d 489, 494 (5th Cir. 2005); John Corp. v. City of Houston, 214 F.3d 573, 576 (5th Cir. 2000). "[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction cannot be created by waiver or consent." Howery, 243 F.3d at 919; accord Gasch v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 2007); In re TXNB Internal Case, 483 F.3d 292, 298 n.6 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1022 (2007).

The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking to invoke it. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, _U.S._, _, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1194 (2010); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006); SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald, 618 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010). Indeed, "there is a presumption against subject matter jurisdiction that must be rebutted by the party bringing an action to federal court." Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir. 1984)); accord Howery, 243 F.3d at 916 (citing Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377). Moreover, the court must always be mindful of "'"the first principle of federal jurisdiction, "'" which requires a federal court to dismiss an action whenever it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Veldhoen v. U.S. Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hart & Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System 835 (2d ed. 1973))).

"'When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits____'" In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 624 F.3d 201, 209 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 960 (2002)); Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding that when there is both a want of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and a failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6), the trial court should dismiss on the jurisdictional ground without reaching the question of failure to state a claim). "This requirement prevents a court withoutjurisdiction from prematurely dismissing a case with prejudice." Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161 (citing Hitt, 561 F.2d at 608); accord In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 624 F.3d at 209. The court's dismissal of a plaintiff's case because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction is not a determination on the merits and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a claim in a court that does have proper jurisdiction. See Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161 (citing Hitt, 561 F.2d at 608); accord In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 624 F.3d at 209.

"A Rule 12(b)(1) motion should be granted only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove a plausible set of facts that establish subject-matter jurisdiction." Davis v. United States, 597 F.3d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 2009); see Ramming, 281 F.3d at 158; Atl. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ramirez, 651 F. Supp. 2d 669, 677 (N.D. Tex. 2009). In ruling on such a motion, a court may consider "'(1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.'" Spotts v. United States, 613 F.3d 559, 565 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting St. Tammany Parish v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 556 F.3d 307, 315 (5th Cir. 2009)); Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 334 (5th Cir. 2009); New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir. 2008); Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008). "The standard of reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(1) depends upon whether the defendant makes a facial or factual challenge to the plaintiff's complaint." Radar Solutions, Ltd. v. U.S. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 628 F. Supp. 2d 714, 723 (W.D. Tex. 2009), aff'd, 368 F. App'x 480 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 130 S. Ct. 3524 (2010) (citing Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981)). "A 'facial attack' on the complaint requires the court merely to look and see if plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matterjurisdiction, and the allegations in his complaint are taken as true for the purposes of the motion." Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 953 (1980); accord Den Norske Stats Otjesetskap As v. HeereMac V.O.F., 241 F.3d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1127 (2002); Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 412 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897 (1982); Radar Solutions, Ltd., 628 F. Supp. 2d at 723.

In bringing this motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the Media Defendants rely solely on the language of the complaint. Accordingly, this is a facial attack, and Akins's allegations must be taken as true for purposes of determining whether he has sufficiently alleged a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343

With respect to federal question jurisdiction, federal district courts have "original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Budget Prepay, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 605 F.3d 273, 278 n.1 (5th Cir. ...