Sandsbury v. Teers et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Eugene Sandsbury
v. 	Case No. 24-cv-92-SM-TSM
John Teers and DCI
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is Eugene Sandsbury’s complaint (Doc. No. 1), which is here for
preliminary review, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
The court conducts a preliminary review of complaints filed by plaintiffs like Sandsbury
who are permitted to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR
4.3(d)(2). 	Claims may be dismissed, sua sponte, if the court lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is
immune from the relief sought, or the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See id. Because Sandsbury is proceeding pro se, the court construes his filings liberally.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Background
Sandsbury alleges that while he was in a sober living program, working at DCI Furniture
(“DCI”), he was injured due to an incident with his manager. On a day when he had been given
an easy job to do, Sandsbury patted his manager, John Teers, on the back. 	Teers responded by
hip-checking Sandsbury, who landed wrong. Sandsbury went to the Littleton Hospital a few days
later and was told not to work for a couple of weeks. 	He asserts that the change in his routine
caused him to relapse. He ended up back in prison for a parole violation. He anticipates being
Case 1:24-cv-00092-SM-TSM Document 4 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 3

2
released soon. He names DCI and Teers as defendants. He says he is not sure what he can do to
obtain relief.
Discussion
Federal courts are “‘courts of limited jurisdiction.’” Picciotto v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 512 F.3d
9, 17 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994)). The presumption is that a federal court lacks jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
The burden is on the plaintiff to affirmatively allege jurisdiction and prove it. Id. If the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Sandsbury’s claims against the defendants in this case appear to be tort claims that arise
under state law. 	Neither of the defendants is a government agent. 	The court may not exercise
“federal question” subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
A federal court can exercise jurisdiction over state law claims in the absence of any federal
claim if the case satisfies the requirements for “diversity” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To
invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction, Sandsbury must demonstrate that: (a) the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000; and (b) he and the defendants are citizens of different states. Id. He
must show that the parties are completely diverse, that is, that no defendant is a citizen of the same
state as the plaintiff. See Alvarez-Torres v. Ryder Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 582 F.3d 47, 53-54 (1st Cir.
2009).
Sandsbury listed all of the parties as having New Hampshire addresses. 	He has not
demonstrated that he and the defendants are citizens of different states. Accordingly, the district
judge should dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to the
plaintiff’s ability to file a new case in state court where there may be jurisdiction over his claims.
Case 1:24-cv-00092-SM-TSM Document 4 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 3

3
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should dismiss this case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to Sandsbury’s ability to file a new case in state court. Any
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this
notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. Failure
to file any objection within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016). Only those issues
raised in the written objections to this Report and Recommendation “‘are subject to review in the
district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id.
(citations omitted).
_______________________________
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
April 19, 2024
cc: 	Eugene Sandsbury, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00092-SM-TSM Document 4 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 3