Susan Sissom v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et a

Case: 18-50343 Document: 00514984653 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 18-50343 FILED
Summary Calendar June 5, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
SUSAN SISSOM,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INCORPORATED, doing business as
America’s Wholesale Lender; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Trustee
for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc., Series-18CB, formerly known as
Bank of New York; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:17-CV-449
Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Susan Sissom filed a complaint in state court against defendants,
seeking to prevent the foreclosure of her home. After removing the action to
federal court, defendants obtained a favorable judgment.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 18-50343 Document: 00514984653 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2019
No. 18-50343
In this pro se appeal, Sissom challenges only the district court’s exercise
of jurisdiction. She does not challenge its granting defendants’ motion for
judgment on the pleadings, or denying her motion to amend her complaint.
Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, pro se litigants must
brief contentions to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th
Cir. 1993). Therefore, Sissom abandoned any contentions related to those
decisions. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to allow the removal of an
action is reviewed de novo. E.g., MSOF Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 295 F.3d 485,
489 (5th Cir. 2002). “A federal court only has original or removal jurisdiction
if the federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded
complaint and there is generally no federal jurisdiction if the plaintiff properly
pleads only a state law cause of action.” Id. at 490 (citation omitted). Federal-
question jurisdiction “attaches only if the complaint itself states a substantial
federal claim”. Maroney v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 764 F.2d 403, 405 (5th
Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).
Because a federal question appeared on the face of Sissom’s complaint,
removal was proper. See MSOF Corp., 295 F.3d at 490. That defendants had
a defense to the federal question, that it was time-barred, does not render the
claim constitutionally insubstantial, i.e., “wholly insubstantial”, “essentially
fictitious”, or “obviously frivolous”. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537 (1974)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Therefore, the district court
did not err by exercising removal jurisdiction. See MSOF Corp., 295 F.3d at
490.
AFFIRMED.
2