Griffin v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 10 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. C-28-G-69.,C-28-G-69. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | Frederick GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. Calvin MATTHEWS and Willie Drake, Defendants. |
Frederick Griffin, pro se.
Sammie Chess, Jr., High Point, N. C., for defendants.
The plaintiff, an assistant professor of mathematics at A. & T. State University, brings this action against the defendants, students at A. & T. State University, for damages allegedly resulting from the publication of libelous statements concerning plaintiff's professional competence. A. & T. State University is located in Greensboro, North Carolina. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff alleges that he is a "resident citizen of the State of Texas," is "residing in the State of North Carolina for the sole purpose of employment," and has been an assistant professor of mathematics at A. & T. State University in Greensboro "for the past five and one half years."
It is further alleged that both of the defendants "are resident citizens of the State of North Carolina." In separate answers filed, each defendant has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court for the reason that there was no diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants at the time of the commencement of the action.
The parties first appeared before the Court on April 11, 1969, for initial pretrial conference. The Court at that time informed counsel that the jurisdictional question should be resolved before commencement of discovery on the other issues raised by the pleadings. To this end, the parties were instructed to file briefs and supporting factual data within a specified time. The jurisdictional question is now before the Court for decision.
In answer to interrogatories, plaintiff states that he had resided in the State of North Carolina five and one-half years prior to the institution of this action on February 14, 1969; that he was divorced from his wife in the State of North Carolina on June 10, 1968; that even though he was born and reared in the State of Texas he had never exercised his privilege of franchise in that State; that as soon as he met the residence requirements for voter registration in North Carolina he exercised his privilege of franchise in this State; that he last voted in North Carolina in the November, 1968, election; that his wife had never lived in North Carolina, and he had no knowledge with respect to the states, if any, in which she registered or voted. In an affidavit filed on May 29, 1969, plaintiff stated that he was only a temporary employee at A. & T. State University since he had taught on a year-to-year contract, and never obtained tenure. He further alleged that he had never renounced Texas, the State in which he was born and reared, as his fixed place of abode.
Plaintiff, who filed his complaint and is appearing in this action pro se, has filed several paper-writings claiming that the defendants have waived the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court by reason of their failure to timely file briefs and other documents. There is no merit to this contention. It is uniformly held that "lack of federal jurisdiction cannot be waived or be overcome by an agreement of the parties," Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244, 55 S.Ct. 162, 165, 79 L.Ed. 338 (1934), and that "jurisdiction of the federal courts is carefully guarded against expansion by judicial interpretation or by prior action or consent of the parties." American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17, 18, 71 S.Ct. 534, 542, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951). Moreover, Rule 12(h) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the court to dismiss an action whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the Court lacks jurisdiction.
A litigant seeking federal court jurisdiction must plead the essential jurisdictional facts, and has the burden of establishing such facts by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bloom v. Library Corp.
...factors, courts have found a party's voter registration and voting practices to be of particular importance. See Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F.Supp. 341, 343 (M.D.N.C.1969) ( " ‘Voting raises a presumption that the voter is a citizen in the state in which he votes,’ and the presumption must be......
-
Gemini Enterprises, Inc. v. WFMY Television Corp.
...by his adversary, the litigant has the burden of establishing such facts by the preponderance of the evidence. Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F.Supp. 341, 342 (M.D.N.C.1969), aff'd 423 F.2d 272 (4th Cir. 1970), citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 35 S.Ct. 164, 59 L.Ed. 360 A needed exception h......
-
Lew v. Moss
...v. Leslie, 550 F.Supp. 77, 79 n. 3 (E.D.Pa.1982); Mizell v. Eli Lilly & Co., 526 F.Supp. 589, 592-93 (D.S.C.1981); Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F.Supp. 341, 342-43 (M.D.N.C.1969), aff'd, 423 F.2d 272 (4th Cir.1970). The courts have also stated that domicile is evaluated in terms of "objective f......
-
Eastern Federal Corp. v. Wasson, Civ. A. No. 80-1108-14.
...den. 446 U.S. 938, 100 S.Ct. 2158, 64 L.Ed.2d 791 (1979). He must carry this burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F.Supp. 341, 342 (1969) aff'd 423 F.2d 272 (4th Cir. 1970) citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 35 S.Ct. 164, 59 L.Ed. 360 (1915). See also Gemi......