Davis v. Cluet, Peabody & Co., 81-7226

• Decision Date: 16 February 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-7226,81-7226
• Parties: Samuel DAVIS, E. Leon Green and Alice Fay Price, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CLUET, PEABODY & COMPANY, d/b/a Lady Arrow Shirt Co., J. Kirk Barefoot, George Harris, John Knighton, William Morrone, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1371

667 F.2d 1371

Samuel DAVIS, E. Leon Green and Alice Fay Price, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CLUET, PEABODY & COMPANY, d/b/a Lady Arrow Shirt Co., J.

Kirk Barefoot, George Harris, John Knighton,

William Morrone, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 81-7226.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 16, 1982.

Hill, Jones & Associates, P. C., Joseph Jones, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Charles M. Shaffer, Jr., J. Kevin Buster, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before TUTTLE, HILL and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs sued defendants in state court on claims arising out of plaintiffs' alleged involuntary detention by defendants during an investigation of thefts at a company plant. ¹ They later amended their complaints, charging that defendants' actions had violated plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants removed the case to federal court, alleging that plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims raised federal questions and therefore gave the district court jurisdiction to remove and hear the cases under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441. ² The district court denied a motion by plaintiffs to remand the case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447(c) ³ because of the absence of any federal question. The court later dismissed the case, citing plaintiffs' repeated refusal to follow federal and local procedural rules and court orders and the "apparent merit" of defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal.

Our initial inquiry must concern whether the district court ever had subject matter jurisdiction over the cases and so was correct in denying plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Supreme Court has limned a liberal standard to guide the courts in determining whether a federal question is substantial enough to allow the federal courts to take jurisdiction. Unless a question is "so unsubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy", the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction. Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666, 94 S.Ct. 772, 776, 39 L.Ed.2d 73 (1974) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-43, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1378-82, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 683, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). ⁴ Even under such a broad gauge we hold that the federal question in this case was so totally devoid of merit that the district court should not have assumed jurisdiction. Plaintiffs do state that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The language of the Fourteenth Amendment itself ⁵ and cases interpreting the amendment, see, e.g., United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 799, 86 S.Ct. 1152, 1159, 16 L.Ed.2d 267 (1966); Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 298-99, 86 S.Ct. 486, 487-88, 15 L.Ed.2d 373 (1966), make clear, however, that a Fourteenth Amendment claim must include some element of state action. Purely private actions are not subject to the strictures of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs' complaints make no claim that state action was involved. Even absent such an explicit claim, if plaintiffs had made some allegation that we might interpret possibly to raise the issue of state action, we would hold that a substantial federal question was presented that would provide subject matter jurisdiction and allow a decision by the district court on the merits of the complaint. See Allman v. Hanley, 302 F.2d 559, 561 (5th Cir. 1962). By no stretch of the imagination, however, can we construe any statement in plaintiffs' complaint to raise the issue of possible state action. Indeed, even looking beyond plaintiffs' complaint to examine the entire record of the case, ⁶ we find no allegation by any party that might conceivably involve state action. The district court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion to remand. ⁷

At oral argument the issue was raised as to whether we might uphold the district court's dismissal of the case for plaintiffs' misfeasance, despite the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, because the court's action was not actually on the merits. Because the district court has authority to consider the case pending a determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and because while it is considering the case the parties must comply with procedural rules and court orders, one might argue that a court may dismiss a suit for a party's misfeasance though it ultimately determines that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. On the facts of this case, we reject such an argument. First, we note that the ambiguity of the district court's opinion makes it unclear whether or not that court actually was granting summary judgment on the merits. In any event, even assuming that the court only dismissed for plaintiffs' misfeasance, we could not uphold such action in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. The major portion of plaintiffs' actions that served as the basis for the court's order occurred after the motion to remand was denied and most of the actions were not connected with the dispute over subject matter jurisdiction. We do not find it appropriate here for the district court to have imposed the sanction of dismissal, thus disposing of the proceeding even though it had no authority to rule on the merits in the first place. ⁸ Such an act would "work a wrongful extension of federal jurisdiction and give the district courts power the Congress has denied them." American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 18, 71 S.Ct. 534, 542, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951) (reversing entry of judgment after removal by court without jurisdiction). ⁹

The order of the district court is REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions that the court set its judgment aside and remand the cases to state court.

1 Plaintiffs brought suit separately; they appeal jointly.

2 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441 provides in part:

(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.

(c) Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action, which would be removable if sued upon alone, is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters not otherwise within its original jurisdiction.

3 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447(c) provides:

If at any time before...