Quigley v. Sporting Kansas City Soccer, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
ALLAN QUIGLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SPORTING KANSAS CITY SOCCER
CLUB; ANDREA KIMBALL; CLIFFORD
ILLIG; PAT CURRAN; GREG MADAY;
ROBB HEINEMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 19-3164
(D.C. No. 2:19-CV-02273-DDC-JPO)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before HOLMES, PHILLIPS, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Allan Quigley, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against Sporting Kansas City
Soccer Club (“Sporting KC”) and five individuals in connection with his termination
from employment. A magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and recommended that the action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. The district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the action

*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

March 25, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 19-3164 Document: 010110324692 Date Filed: 03/25/2020 Page: 1

2

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), concluding that federal-question jurisdiction was not
implicated because Quigley had raised only state-law tort claims and that there was
not complete diversity of parties for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
1

DISCUSSION
Quigley contends the district court erred in dismissing his action for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. We disagree.
I. Standard of Review
“We review the district court’s order dismissing the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction de novo.” Grynberg v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.,
805 F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). In light of
Quigley’s pro se status, we construe his filings liberally. See Merryfield v. Jordan,
584 F.3d 923, 924 n.1 (10th Cir. 2009). “[B]ut we do not assume the role of
advocate, and his pro se status does not relieve him of his obligation to comply with
the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate
Procedure.” Id. (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
II. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
“[B]ecause the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited, there is a presumption
against our jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden

1
Although the dismissal was without prejudice, the “order expressly and
unambiguously dismisse[d] [Quigley’s] entire action,” and thus, the “order is final
and appealable.” Moya v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d 444, 450 (10th Cir. 2006).
Appellate Case: 19-3164 Document: 010110324692 Date Filed: 03/25/2020 Page: 2

3

of proof.” Full Life Hospice, LLC v. Sebelius, 709 F.3d 1012, 1016 (10th Cir. 2013).
“The basic statutory grants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained
in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Section 1331 provides for ‘federal-question’
jurisdiction, § 1332 for ‘diversity of citizenship’ jurisdiction.” Arbaugh v. Y & H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (brackets omitted).
The district court first concluded that Quigley’s complaint offered no basis for
federal-question jurisdiction, and Quigley has not argued otherwise. See Phillips v.
Humble, 587 F.3d 1267, 1274 (10th Cir. 2009) (recognizing issues not raised on
appeal are deemed waived). The district court next found that Quigley’s complaint
failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. For “diversity jurisdiction, a party must
show that complete diversity of citizenship exists between the adverse parties.”
Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Complete diversity is lacking when any of the plaintiffs has the same
residency as even a single defendant.” Id. (emphasis added).
Quigley alleged in his complaint that: (1) he was a citizen of Missouri;
(2) “[t]he first-named defendant,” Andrea Kimball, was a citizen of Missouri; and
(3) “[t]he second-named defendant,” Sporting KC, was a Kansas corporation. R. at 4.
He did not allege any facts showing the other defendants’ citizenship. In response to
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Quigley alleged Kimball was “not
on the Defenant [sic] list” and was “actually a witness.” Id. at 13-14. But he again
referred to Kimball as a “defendant” and confirmed both he and Kimball were
Missouri residents. Id. at 13. Moreover, Quigley added that defendant Clifford Illig
Appellate Case: 19-3164 Document: 010110324692 Date Filed: 03/25/2020 Page: 3

4

was a Kansas resident, but he provided no information about the citizenship of the
other named defendants, including Pat Curran, Greg Maday, and Robb Heineman.
Quigley makes the conclusory statement in his appellate brief that these defendants
“live in Kansas.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 6. But he made no such allegation in district
court, and “[t]his court . . . will not supply additional factual allegations to round out
a plaintiff’s complaint.” Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1096 (10th Cir.
2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Ultimately, Quigley has provided no factual or legal basis to conclude that the
district court erred in finding a lack of complete diversity necessary for diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
CONCLUSION
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Entered for the Court

Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 19-3164 Document: 010110324692 Date Filed: 03/25/2020 Page: 4