Carlettas McBride v. Quality Carriers, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 5, 2023*
Decided April 5, 2023
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2569
CARLETTAS MCBRIDE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
No. 22-cv-00730-SPM
Stephen P. McGlynn,
Judge.
O R D E R
Carlettas McBride appeals the dismissal of his suit seeking damages arising out
of a traffic accident. The district court, upon screening the complaint, determined that it
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider his claims because they did not present a
federal question. But the court did not consider whether McBride could amend his
* The appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we
have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. F ED. R. A PP . P.
34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-2569 Page 2
complaint to assert diversity jurisdiction. We vacate the court’s judgment and remand
so that McBride may have an opportunity to amend.
We review the screening order de novo and accept the factual allegations in
McBride’s complaint as true. Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 994 (7th Cir. 2020).
McBride was driving a tractor trailer when a tire dislodged from another truck and
struck his vehicle. The tire came from a truck driven by Michael Moore and owned by
Quality Carriers, Inc. (McBride also sued an entity called “Triple JP Enterprises,” but he
does not suggest how the company is connected to this accident.) McBride suffered
severe spinal cord injuries and has been disabled ever since.
McBride, acting pro se, filed a form civil-rights complaint against Moore, Quality
Carriers, and Triple JP Enterprises. As a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, McBride
asserted that the defendants failed to conform to certain federal trucking regulations.
49 C.F.R. §§ 393, 396.11. Elsewhere in the complaint, he asserted that he was suing
because of the defendants’ negligence.
Because McBride sought to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court screened
the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Recounting McBride’s allegations, the court noted that
he had been unsuccessful litigating the same matter in the Mississippi state courts.
See McBride v. Quality Carriers, Inc., No. 2021-CP-00235, 2022 Miss. LEXIS 48 (Miss.
Feb. 17, 2022) (granting motion to dismiss appeal). The court proceeded to dismiss the
complaint on jurisdictional grounds because McBride failed to plead federal-question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court explained that neither the cited federal
regulations (which concerned the maintenance of commercial vehicles) nor his claim of
negligence conferred federal jurisdiction. And even if jurisdiction were adequately
established, McBride’s allegations were too “murky” and “vague” to state a claim, and
his action was “clearly … frivolous.”
On appeal, McBride devotes his brief to rehashing the facts and disagreeing with
the state courts’ handling of his case, but nowhere does he engage with the district
court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint. We note, however, that he asserted in his
docketing statement that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the statute
governing diversity of citizenship.
McBride has the burden to allege facts demonstrating the existence of
jurisdiction. Farnik v. FDIC, 707 F.3d 717, 721 (7th Cir. 2013). At the outset, we agree
with the district court that McBride’s complaint did not raise a federal question. The

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2569 Page 3
federal regulations he cites do not establish federal-question jurisdiction because they
do not provide a private right of action for personal-injury suits or necessarily raise a
disputed and substantial federal issue. See Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257–58 (2013).
But the court apparently overlooked the possibility that jurisdiction could be based on
diversity of citizenship—as long as the parties were completely diverse and the amount
in controversy requirement could be met. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v.
Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 64–68 (1996). The court thus spoke too broadly when it stated that no
“federal statute confers jurisdiction for a claim of negligence.” True, the complaint says
nothing to establish any of the parties’ citizenship. It is not clear, however, that McBride
could not cure the jurisdictional defect through an amendment clarifying the citizenship
of all respective parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Ordinarily, plaintiffs should be given a chance
to amend their jurisdictional filings to address gaps in jurisdictional allegations,
see, e.g., Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002); Dancel v.
Groupon, Inc., 940 F.3d 381, 385–86 (7th Cir. 2019), and McBride has not had that
opportunity.
Relatedly, we disagree with the court’s determination that McBride’s complaint
failed to state a claim. All McBride had to plead was a short and plain statement of the
claim, see F ED. R. C IV. P. 8(a), and here he alleged a straightforward description of a
trucking accident caused by the negligence of another truck’s owner and driver. That is
sufficient to satisfy pleading requirements. And even if it were not, McBride is entitled
to a chance to address any deficiencies unless amendment would have been futile,
see, e.g., Zimmerman v. Bornick, 25 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022), which does not appear to
be the case here.
A final note: left unresolved is the potential res judicata effect of the Mississippi
state-court judgment mentioned by the district court. Although res judicata is an
affirmative defense that ordinarily should not be considered at screening, see Carr v.
Tillery, 591 F.3d 909, 913 (7th Cir. 2010), dismissal is proper when it is clear from the face
of the complaint, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken, that res judicata
bars the claims, see Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009 (7th Cir. 2002); Parungao v.
Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 858 F.3d 452, 457 (7th Cir. 2017).
We VACATE the judgment and REMAND the case for further proceedings.

-- 3 of 3 --