Lockett v. Jackson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TERESA LOCKETT,1 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-CV-01309 SPM
)
JACQUELINE S. JACKSON, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Self-represented Plaintiff Teresa Lockett brings this action against her sister, Jacqueline
Jackson, who appears to be her Court-appointed guardian, asserting a conversion of Social Security
funds purportedly taken from her in May and June of 2025. [ECF No. 1]. The matter is now before
the Court upon the Motion of Plaintiff for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, or without
prepayment of the required filing fees and costs. [ECF No. 2]. Having reviewed the Motion and
the 	financial 	information 	submitted 	in 	support, 	the 	Court 	will 	grant 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion.
Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel will be
denied as moot. [ECF No. 3].
Legal Standard
If this Court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss
the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Additionally, this Court is required to review a complaint filed
in forma pauperis to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). This Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or
1 Plaintiff is also known as Theresa Lockett.
Case: 4:25-cv-01309-SPM Doc. #: 5 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
This Court must liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople. Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This means that “if the essence of an allegation is discernible,” the court
should “construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within
the proper legal framework.” Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone
v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). However, even pro se complaints must allege facts
which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286
(8th Cir. 1980). Federal courts are not required to assume facts that are not alleged, Stone, 364
F.3d at 914-15, nor are they required to interpret procedural rules so as to excuse mistakes by those
who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
The Complaint
Plaintiff, who appears to suffer from Schizophrenia, ECF No. 1-3 at 9, filed the instant
action against her sister, Jacqueline Jackson, who she claims to be her Court-appointed power of
attorney and guardian. See generally ECF No. 1. Before delving into the claims in this action, the
Court first notes that prior to filing this action on August 28, 2025, it seems that Plaintiff had
momentarily stopped taking medication to treat her Schizophrenia in early June of 2025, and a
change was noticed in her behavior. Id.
Plaintiff voluntarily sought mental health assistance through SSM DePaul Hospital on or
about June 7, 2025. Plaintiff attached to her Complaint the hospital intake forms from DePaul.
Additionally, Plaintiff provided to the Court an affidavit filed by her sister Jacqueline that was
provided to DePaul Hospital at the time she was admitted. It states:
Teresa has been acting different for about two weeks her mood attitude and
everything has changed, her case worker, day care center and myself noticed on
Monday, June 2, 2025. Teresa walked off and did not return. Teresa is a paranoid
Schizophrenic Multiple Personality Hallucinations and Manic Depressions. She has
Case: 4:25-cv-01309-SPM Doc. #: 5 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
not taken her oral medication since Sunday June 1st and daily has been getting
worse. As of May 2021 I am Teresa Lockett Power of Attorney.
[ECF No. 1-3 at 10].
It is unclear how long Plaintiff remained at DePaul Hospital for voluntary treatment, as she
has attached a letter to her Complaint showing that she presented herself to the Family Care Office
at Christian Hospital on June 11, 2025, for an early office appointment relating to mental health
services. [ECF No. 1-3 at 6]. Thus, it looks as if she departed from the 96-hour hold at DePaul
Hospital several days early. The Court now examines Plaintiff’s claims in this action against her
sister Jacqueline.
Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks a coherent “Statement of Claim” and jurisdictional statement;
thus, the Court must surmise the gist of Plaintiff’s claims and the jurisdictional basis for this
lawsuit from the entirety of the filings in this case. On page 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff
states the following:
I receive SSI and Jacqueline kept $2991.00 from my SSI as my payee. I never
received any of my SSI funds for two months nor did she pay my rent for two
months.
[ECF No. 1 at 6].
Plaintiff has attached a copy of a “Statement of Claimant,” that she submitted to the Social
Security Administration on an undisclosed date. It states:
To Whom This May Concern:
I am writing this letter so that Social Security can be stopped having Jackie Jackson
as my Payee. I have not received any money from the payments in the last 2 months.
She did not pay rent for these months. I need her to release my money. She wrote
roommate to not allow me in the house. She has all my identification (ID) and her
lawyer told her not to give me my money. I need my money and ID. I cannot find
anywhere else to go. She put it into [undecipherable] account of debit card.
[ECF No. 1-3 at 7].
Case: 4:25-cv-01309-SPM Doc. #: 5 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 4 -
Plaintiff failed to fill in the jurisdictional statement in her Complaint; however, she denoted
that she and her sister were both citizens of the State of Missouri. On the Civil Cover Sheet, she
noted that her case arose under Federal Question jurisdiction and involved matters related to
“Voting.” Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of allegations relating to voting. Rather, her claims
appear to be related to a dispute between her and her guardian regarding how her SSI benefits were
spent between May and June 2025. The only portion of the Complaint that appears to request relief
is contained within Plaintiff’s “Statement of Claimant” letter submitted to the Social Security
Administration in which she seeks an order from SSA to stop sending her benefits to Jacqueline
Jackson and asks for a recoupment of funds.
Discussion
As the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving
jurisdiction. See Mitchael v. Colvin, 809 F.3d 1050, 1053 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Great Rivers
Habitat Alliance v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 615 F.3d 985, 988 (8th Cir. 2010)). Here,
Plaintiff has failed to articulate a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction in the Complaint.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to sue her sister for conversion, or civil theft of her funds,2
this Court has no federal subject matter jurisdiction over her claim. This Court lacks diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as both she and her sister are citizens of Missouri, and the
amount in controversy in this action is less than the required $75,000. And a state court claim of
conversion, by itself, does not state a federal question.
To the extent Plaintiff is claiming that the Social Security Administration failed to stop
Jackson from withdrawing the funds or change the beneficiary of the funds after she sought the
change, the SSA, as an agency of the United States, enjoys sovereign immunity from suit absent
2 See Eckel v. Eckel, 540 S.W.3d 476, 487 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018) (noting that the tort of conversion applies
to the theft of personal property to the exclusion of the owner’s rights).
Case: 4:25-cv-01309-SPM Doc. #: 5 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 5 -
consent. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994), United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S 206,
212 (1983). And the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction. Id.
Even if the Court were to assume that the Social Security Administration was the proper
Defendant in this action, Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no facts to even arguably suggest that the
SSA or one of its agents waived sovereign immunity. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to expressly cite
the Social Security Act as the basis for her Complaint. However, in an abundance of caution, the
Court will address 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as it could be relevant here.
Section 405(g) contains a limited waiver of the SSA’s sovereign immunity. It specifically
permits suits challenging final decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security in connection
with social security eligibility and benefits determinations. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Mitchael
v. Colvin, 809 F.3d 1050, 1054 (8th Cir. 2016). Section 405(g) limits the jurisdiction of the federal
district courts to “affirming, modifying, or reversing the [final] decision of the Commissioner.” 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
But in this case, Plaintiff neither submits nor references a final decision from an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or the Appeals Council, and her Complaint contains no
allegations that can be construed as identifying any final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security that Plaintiff seeks to challenge. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no facts that
would state a colorable constitutional claim. There is therefore no basis to conclude that this Court
has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against the SSA concerning her monthly benefits. See
Grisso v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 791, 793 (8th Cir. 2000) (“To the extent [the plaintiff’s] mandamus
petition sought reimbursement of benefits, we agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction
to review such a claim absent exhaustion of administrative remedies”); see also Armstrong v.
Astrue, 569 F. Supp. 2d 888, 898 (D. Minn. 2008) (dismissing claim challenging amount of
Case: 4:25-cv-01309-SPM Doc. #: 5 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 6 -
monthly SSA benefits when plaintiff failed to submit final decision from ALJ or Appeals Council
for federal district court’s review).
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff can be understood to assert a claim under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”), such claim must be dismissed for the simple reason that the SSA cannot be
sued under the FTCA. See Duncan v. Dep’t of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir. 2002) (federal
agencies cannot be sued under the FTCA). Even if Plaintiff had named the United States as the
Defendant, there is no indication she has complied with any of the necessary prerequisites for
bringing a claim under the FTCA. See Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 808 (8th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff does not identify, nor is the Court aware, of any alternative jurisdictional basis for this
action. Having thoroughly reviewed and liberally construed the complaint, the Court concludes it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction and will therefore dismiss this action at this time. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. A separate Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF
No. 3] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 4th day of February, 2026.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01309-SPM Doc. #: 5 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>