Greene et al v. Weingart First Care Village

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
CEDRIC GREENE AND 	§
VALERIE STEPHEN, 	§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-587
§
WEINGART CARE FIRST VILLAGE, 	§
Defendant. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiffs Cedric Greene and Valerie Stephen, proceeding pro se, bring a complaint
to the Court concerning Mr. Greene’s living situation at Defendant Weingart Care First
Village’s facility. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Plaintiffs also seek to proceed without prepayment of
legal fees. Dkt. No. 2.
Plaintiff Greene alleges facts concerning his living situation at a California facility
which pertains to him only. Still, Greene states Plaintiff Valerie Stephen “is the other
Plaintiff in this civil action due to the fact that she was with Cedric in the Pacific Northwest
when unjust actions were taken against Cedric.” Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff makes clear that
Ms. Stephen was present, but this claim to have standing to pursue a claim concerning
Greene’s claims against Defendant Weingart Care First Village fails. Lujan v. Defenders
of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992).
Greene requests “the opportunity . . . to prove that this a diversity jurisdiction case.”
Dkt. No. 1. However, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent
jurisdiction conferred by statute, lack the power to adjudicate claims.” Lavery v. Barr, 943
F.3d 272, 275 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation omitted). “The federal courts are under an
independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction.” United States v. Hays, 515 U.S.
737 (1995); see also United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490, 493 (citing Bass v.
Denney, 171 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir. 1999)). “The party seeking to assert federal
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 22, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00587 Document 8 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
jurisdiction...has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that subject
matter jurisdiction exists.” New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321,
327 (5th Cir. 2008).
Greene purports that the Court has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
Dkt. No. 1 at 3. See 28 U.S.C. §1332. Greene does not indicate that the amount in
controversy exceeds $ 75,000. 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). Greene claims that he is not a citizen
of any state, but everyone has a domicile. Sivalls v. United States, 205 F.2d 444, 446 (5th
Cir. 1953) (“Every person has one, and only one, domicile.”). Further, when jurisdiction
depends on citizenship, the citizenship of each party must be "distinctly and affirmatively"
alleged in accordance with § 1332(a) and (c). Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803,
804 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting McGovern v. American Airlines, Inc., 511 F.2d 653, 654 (5th
Cir. 1975)). Greene has not complied with this requirement.
Consequently, for these reasons, Greene has not satisfied his burden of proving that
subject matter jurisdiction exists.
Plaintiffs proceeding without a legal representative are considered pro se plaintiffs
and receive the benefit of liberal construction of their claims. See Kaltenbach v. Richards,
464 F.3d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 2006).1
Although a Court can dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction, when raised sua sponte,
the Court should still provide a plaintiff with “a reasonable opportunity to present any
available evidence supporting the court's jurisdiction.” Sys. Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V
VIKTOR 	KURNATOVSKIY, 	242 	F.3d 	322, 	325 	(5th 	Cir. 2001). 	This 	Report 	and
Recommendation will provide Mr. Greene with a reasonable opportunity to argue the Court
has jurisdiction.
1 However, pro se pleadings must still contain sufficient facts to support their claims, and the plaintiff is
still required to “fundamentally abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.” United States v. Pineda,
988 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir. 1993); Fryer v. United States, EP-19-CV-00134-DCG-ATB, 2020 WL 6588397,
at *3 (W.D. Tex. July 20, 2020) (quoting E.E.O.C. v Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014)). A
party's pro se status does not create an “impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass
others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court
dockets.” Farguson v. Mbank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
Case 1:26-cv-00587 Document 8 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Recommendation.
It is recommended the Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
Notice to Parties
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of
this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party filing
objection must specifically identify the factual or legal findings to which objections are
being made. The District Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the
record before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings
without conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings
on appeal, except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs.,
L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on June 22, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00587 Document 8 Filed 06/22/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3