Arrington et al v. Austin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARMAINE ARRINGTON
AND MEAGAN COLEMAN
VERSUS
DAMIEN AUSTIN
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-1505
SECTION: “M” (3)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant published a “false, malicious, and defamatory
post on Facebook . . . .”1 They sued him for defamation, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and violation of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis. The statute allowing Plaintiffs to
proceed as a pauper also requires the court to screen a pauper’s complaint if at any
time the court makes a determination of frivolousness. “It is left to the discretion of
the court to which the application is made to determine whether the petition on its
face is frivolous or lacking in merit.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th
Cir. 1969). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires summary dismissal sua sponte should the
Court determine that a case is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted. A complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Berry
v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999).
Federal courts are also courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C., 45 F.4th 816, 821 (5th Cir. 2022). As
1 R. Doc. 5, ¶ 7.
Case 2:25-cv-01505-BWA Document 12 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 4

the Supreme Court has explained:
The basic statutory grants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction
are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Section 1331 provides for
‘[f]ederal-question’ jurisdiction, § 1332 for ‘[d]iversity of citizenship’
jurisdiction. A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she
pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the
United States. She invokes § 1332 jurisdiction when she presents a
claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required
jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000.
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). Because “subject-matter
jurisdiction ... involves a court's power to hear a case, [it] can never be forfeited or
waived.” Id. (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002)). Federal
courts thus “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party[.]” Id. (citing
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). “If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiffs provided Louisiana addresses for themselves and the Defendant.
They do not invoke diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the sole potential basis for subject
matter jurisdiction is Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims.
“To state a cause of action under section 1983, [Plaintiffs] must allege that
the person who deprived [them] of a federal right was acting under color of law.”
Priester v. Lowndes Cty., 354 F.3d 414, 420 (5th Cir. 2004). And for a private
citizen to be liable, Plaintiffs “must allege that the citizen conspired with or acted
in concert with state actors.” See id. There are no such allegations in this case.
An August 20, 2025 Order placed Plaintiffs on notice of this deficiency in
Case 2:25-cv-01505-BWA Document 12 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 4

their Section 1983 claims. R. Doc. 10. The Order provided them with an
opportunity to amend their Complaint to provide specific factual allegations, if
any, as to whether Defendant was acting under color of law or conspiring with or
acting in concert with state actors. The Order cautioned that the failure to respond
may subject their claims to dismissal. Plaintiffs did not respond to the Order. The
deadline to do so expired more than one month ago. Despite having been given an
opportunity to plead their best case, Plaintiffs have not set forth a federal claim
with any arguable basis in fact or law. The lack of any non-frivolous federal claim
deprives the Court of federal question jurisdiction. There is thus no basis for
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.2
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Plaintiffs’ complaint be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds
of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings
and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been
served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. 28
2 The dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction does
not preclude them from pursuing their claims in a proper jurisdiction.
Case 2:25-cv-01505-BWA Document 12 Filed 11/05/25 Page 3 of 4

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.
1996) (en banc)).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5 th day of November, 2025.
__________________________________________
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01505-BWA Document 12 Filed 11/05/25 Page 4 of 4