DeKorrie K. Bell v. Birmingham Board of Education

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10118
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DEKORRIE K. BELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant- Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-00477-MHH
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10118 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10118
Before L AGOA , ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
DeKorrie Bell, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of
her case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Bell filed a complaint against the Birmingham Board of Ed-
ucation (“the Board”) in federal court using the pro se general com-
plaint form for civil cases. On the form, she checked the box des-
ignating “Constitutional or Federal Question” as the basis for juris-
diction, listed “title IV Civil Rights Act 1962 42 USC 2000 obstruc-
tion of Justice” as the basis for the federal court’s jurisdiction, and
sought $40 million in damages. The district court, however, found
that Bell failed to allege any facts establishing that it had subject
matter jurisdiction and dismissed her case without prejudice.
We liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings, holding
them “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir.
2014). However, this liberal construction does not mean a court
must serve as de facto counsel for the pro se party, nor does it oblige
the court to rewrite a deficient pleading to sustain the action. Id.
at 1168-69. Issues not raised on appeal by a pro se litigant are
deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.
2008).
We review de novo a district court’s determination that it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168. The
USCA11 Case: 23-10118 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-10118 Opinion of the Court 3
party bringing the claim bears the burden of establishing that the
district court has subject matter jurisdiction. Williams v. Poarch
Band of Creek Indians, 839 F.3d 1312, 1314 (11th Cir. 2016). Federal
courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and are empowered
to hear only those cases within its statutory or constitutional au-
thority. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994).
Thus, federal courts have jurisdiction over cases raising federal
questions or cases involving diverse citizens where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).
“If jurisdiction is based on either of these, the pleader must affirm-
atively allege facts demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction and
include a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the
court’s jurisdiction depends.” Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367 (internal quo-
tation marks omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). Without such
allegations, the court must dismiss the action if the plaintiff does
not cure the deficiency. Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266,
1268 (11th Cir. 2013); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (explaining
that a court must dismiss an action once it determines that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction).
As an initial matter, Bell does not challenge the district
court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in her
brief, meaning she has abandoned that issue on appeal. Timson, 518
F.3d at 874. Nevertheless, considering Bell’s pro se status, we will
review the district court’s dismissal of Bell’s complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Upon such review, we conclude that
the district court did not err in dismissing Bell’s case for that reason.
Bell’s pro se complaint failed to allege facts establishing either
USCA11 Case: 23-10118 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10118
federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the dis-
trict court’s dismissal of Bell’s complaint is AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-10118 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --