McNeese v. Snow ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION JOSEPH HENRY MCNEESE, III CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-00071 VERSUS JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY TIMMY A. SNOW, ET AL MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES MEMORANDUM RULING Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Henry McNeese, III’s (“McNeese”) motion for a temporary restraining order, styled as “Motion for Restraining Order” (“Motion for a TRO”) [Doc. No. 3]. McNeese complains of a road being built and used by Billy Rath within 35 feet of McNeese’s home, excessive noise and headlights disturbing his peace, and the cutting of timber on neighboring property. McNeese seeks a “motion of Restraining Order against Timmy Snow and Billy Rath in the interests of justice.” [Id., p. 1]. Federal courts possess the inherent power to sua sponte consider subject matter jurisdiction. Where a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, courts must dismiss the plaintiff’s case at any time the court determines that the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A case is deemed “frivolous” when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Chavez v. First Nat'l Bank of S. Africa, No. DR– 15–CV–065–AM/VRG, 2015 WL 13036708, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2015) (citing Bibbs v. Harris, 578 Fed. App’x. 448 (5th Cir. 2014); Nixon v. Attorney Gen. of Tex., 537 Fed. App’x. 512 (5th Cir. 2013)). Ordinarily, a court must give notice to a party before dismissing its claims, but such notice is not necessary when the dismissal is based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Ford v. NYL Care Health Plans of Gulf Coast, Inc., 301 F.3d 329, 332, 334 (5th Cir.2002), (dismissing a Lanham Act claim without notice to the parties based on lack of standing, despite the fact that the issue was “never briefed by the parties, questioned by the district court, or even mentioned at oral argument,” and the “parties did not have the benefit of a hearing to present evidence on the issue.’’) Here, McNeese has failed to set forth any basis for this Court to possess subject matter jurisdiction. There is no diversity between the parties. McNeese has not identified any federal question. Accordingly, McNeese’s Motion for TRO [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 17" day of January, 2020. etal Yugi UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE