Atkins v. Propst ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10609 Document: 00516691032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-10609 March 28, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
John Louis Atkins,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Jeffrey A. Propst,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-166
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
John Louis Atkins, Texas prisoner No. 2184778, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his second amended complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Because Atkins fails to show any reversible error, we AFFIRM.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10609 Document: 00516691032 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2023
No. 22-10609
I
This appeal stems from Atkins’s lawsuit against his former attorney,
Jeffrey A. Propst, and it is the second appeal on these facts. Among other
allegations, Atkins alleged that Propst committed legal malpractice, breached
his fiduciary duty, and violated Atkins’s right to due process. Having
reviewed Atkins’s complaint, the district court originally sua sponte dismissed
the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim. In dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the
district court held that there was no complete diversity because both Atkins
and Propst are citizens of Texas. Atkins appealed this dismissal to the Fifth
Circuit. Atkins v. Propst, No. 20-11008, 2022 WL 24504, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan.
3, 2022). On that appeal, Atkins argued that because he is a citizen of
Wyoming, the district court erred in holding that diversity did not exist.
However, we declined to address the issue because “The district
court should have given Atkins an opportunity to further develop his
allegations before sua sponte dismissing the case.” Id. (citing Bazrowx v.
Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998); Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th
Cir. 1994)). Consequently, the panel vacated the judgment of the district
court and remanded the case “so that Atkins may receive such an
opportunity.” Id.On remand, the district court ordered Atkins to file a second amended
complaint so he could cure any defects. Atkins submitted a second amended
complaint soon after. But despite the amendment, the district court held that
the complaint was still deficient: “Having been notified that his pleading was
insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction and given an opportunity to
address that issue, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden.”
The district court observed that “Aside from [] conclusory
allegations, [Atkins] does not set forth any facts to substantiate his
2
Case: 22-10609 Document: 00516691032 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/28/2023
No. 22-10609
[Wyoming] citizenship. Instead, the allegations in his pleadings continue to
reflect that [he] lived in Abilene when he was detained at his place of work by
Abilene Police.” Importantly, the district court also noted that “shortly
before the filing of this suit, [Atkins] represented under penalty of perjury to
the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota in a
complaint he filed that he is a citizen of Texas.” See Atkins v. Atkins, No.
3:19-CV-023 (D.N.D. Dec. 21, 2018). Accordingly, the court held that
Atkins’s self-serving conclusory allegation that he is a citizen of Wyoming
was insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction and dismissed the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Atkins timely appealed.
II
The district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
reviewed de novo. See Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 978 F.3d 280, 281 (5th Cir.
2020). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Atkins had the burden of
pleading diverse citizenship. Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir.
1974).
III
Atkins argues that the district court erred in dismissing the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction for three reasons. First, Atkins contends
that the district court erred in holding that he is a citizen of Texas because:
(1) He was a citizen of and domiciled in Wyoming prior to his arrest; and (2)
“A prisoner is a citizen of the state of which he was a citizen before he was
sent to prison unless he plans to live elsewhere when he gets out.” Bontkowski
v. Smith, 305 F.3d 757, 763 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Ronald Alexander LeBlanc Trust v. Ransom, 276 F. Supp. 2d
647, 651 (S.D. Tex. 2003). Second, Atkins asserts that the district court
improperly relied on matters outside of the pleadings by taking judicial notice
on its own accord. And third, Atkins contends that even if diversity
3
Case: 22-10609 Document: 00516691032 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/28/2023
No. 22-10609
jurisdiction does not exist, the district court should have exercised federal
question and supplemental jurisdiction. None of these arguments are
persuasive. We address each in turn.
A
Atkins argues that he is a citizen of Wyoming because he was
domiciled in Wyoming prior to his arrest in Abilene. He asserts that he came
to Texas only for temporary employment and that he “rented rooms at
various Hotels and Inns in Texas because [he] had no intent to stay in
Texas.” And he notes that he has never held any kind of Texas ID or vehicle
registration. Rather, he contends that at the time of his arrest, his car was
titled and registered in Wyoming and that he had a Wyoming state ID.Thus, because “[a] prisoner is a citizen of the state of which he was a
citizen before he was sent to prison unless he plans to live elsewhere when he
gets out,” Atkins contends that he is still a citizen of Wyoming. Bontkowski,
305 F.3d at 763 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, he argues
that the district court erred in holding that diversity jurisdiction did not exist.
But Atkins’s argument fails because he only mentioned those
supporting allegations for the first time on appeal; he did not include any of
those assertions in any of his complaints. As the district court correctly
noted, Atkins’s operative complaint does “not set forth any facts to
substantiate his [Wyoming] citizenship.”
Because Atkins was on notice that his pleading may be deficient, and
yet he failed to include any meaningful supporting allegations in his second
amended complaint, we hold that the district court correctly dismissed
Atkins’s complaint for want of jurisdiction. And we see no reason to give
him yet another chance to replead.
4
Case: 22-10609 Document: 00516691032 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/28/2023
No. 22-10609
B
Next, Atkins argues that the district court improperly relied on
matters outside of the pleadings in reaching its decision. But Atkins’s
argument is unpersuasive because this court has held that a district court is
allowed to take “judicial notice of public documents” to sua sponte consider
whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp.,
805 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Kaufman v. W. Union Telephone Co.,
224 F.2d 723, 725 (5th Cir. 1955)).
C
Finally, Atkins argues that even if diversity jurisdiction does not exist,
the district court could still consider his claims based on federal question and
supplemental jurisdiction. On this issue, the district court held that federal
question jurisdiction does not exist because: (1) Plaintiff has omitted
references to federal question jurisdiction in his new complaint; and (2) The
only claims asserted are brought pursuant to state tort law. The district court
further held that there is no supplemental jurisdiction “because there is no
federal question jurisdiction to be supplemented.”
We agree with the district court’s determination that federal question
jurisdiction does not exist and that supplemental jurisdiction cannot exist on
its own. See Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc., 669 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2012)
(noting that there can be “no supplemental jurisdiction of other claims”
without an independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction (quoting 13D
Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3567 (3d ed. 2008)).
* * *
For these reasons, the district court correctly determined that Atkins
failed to plead sufficient facts to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The
district court also properly denied Atkins’s motion for recusal because he
5
Case: 22-10609 Document: 00516691032 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/28/2023
No. 22-10609
“offers nothing more than unsubstantiated suggestions.” Accordingly, we
AFFIRM.
6