Greene et al v. MV Transportation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CEDRIC GREENE AND
VALERIE STEPHEN,
Plaintiffs,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-2445
MV TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court 1 is pro se Plaintiffs Cedric Greene and Valerie
Stephen’s (“Plaintiffs”) Petition for Leave to Proceed and Demand Relief (ECF
No. 1), Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2), and Motion to
Transfer (ECF No. 8). 	The Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiffs’ Petition (ECF
No. 1) and Application (ECF No. 2) be DENIED, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer
(ECF No. 8) be DENIED AS MOOT, and Plaintiffs’ case be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential for the federal judiciary to hear
a case.” 	The Lamar Co., L.L.C. v. Mississippi Transp. Comm’n, 976 F.3d 524,
528 (5th Cir. 2020). 	This is because federal courts are courts of limited
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF No. 5).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02445 Document 9 Filed 04/17/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
jurisdiction and must have statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a
claim. 	Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006,
1010 (5th Cir. 1998). 	Federal district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction
over two types of cases: cases involving a federal question or cases involving
diversity of citizenship of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question),
1332 (diversity). 	A “federal court may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte.” 	McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 182 n.5 (5th Cir. 2005). 	As
the federal rules prescribe, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” FED. R. C IV . P.
12(h)(3).
Here, it is clear from Plaintiffs’ Petition for Leave to Proceed and
Demand Relief (ECF No. 1) that this case should be dismissed. Plaintiffs’ filing
begins by stating that “the cause of action didn’t occur within the boundaries
of the venue’s geographical area.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiffs acknowledge that they
both live outside of Texas. (Id.). In fact, one of the plaintiffs states he is “listed
as a bad faith litigant in the Dallas federal venue.” 	(Id.). 	Plaintiffs explain
that they intended to pursue this case in Arkansas but that it was transferred
to California, where it was ultimately dismissed. 	(Id. at 2, 12). 	Plaintiffs do
not provide information regarding the factual background of their case or their
causes of action. Plaintiffs reference the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,
Case 4:26-cv-02445 Document 9 Filed 04/17/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
but 	this 	does 	not 	create 	jurisdiction. 	See 	Presidential 	Candidate 	No.
P60005535 v. World Intell. Prop. Org., No. 9:25-cv-114, 2025 WL 1911409, at
*3 (E.D. Tex. June 12, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 9:25-cv-
114, 2025 WL 1907479 (E.D. Tex. July 10, 2025) (“Plaintiff’s listing of federal
statutes and constitutional provisions does not, ipso facto, create subject
matter jurisdiction and there is no basis for diversity as Plaintiff does not plead
the citizenship of any of the parties.”).
In summary, Plaintiffs’ filing fails to establish a basis for federal subject
matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 governing federal question
jurisdiction or 28 U.S.C. § 1333 governing diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
As such, this case should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. 	See Benton v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., No. 4:24-cv-112,
2024 WL 3237543, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 23, 2024), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 4:24-cv-112, 2024 WL 3246071 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2024) (“The
procedure 	for 	sua 	sponte 	dismissal 	in 	this 	case 	is 	fair 	because 	this
Memorandum and Recommendation puts Plaintiff on notice of the Court’s
intention to dismiss and Plaintiff has 14 days to file an objection and explain
why his case should be allowed to proceed.”).
Finally, because the pleading of a pro se plaintiff should be liberally
construed and held to less stringent standards, courts sometimes afford pro se
Case 4:26-cv-02445 Document 9 Filed 04/17/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
plaintiffs 	the 	opportunity 	to 	amend 	their 	pleadings 	to 	cure 	any 	defects.
Anyanwu v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. 3:14-cv-2638, 2015 WL 9595416, at *1 (N.D.
Tex. Dec. 4, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:14-cv-2638, 2015
WL 	9593625 	(N.D. 	Tex. 	Dec. 	31, 	2015). 	The 	Fifth 	Circuit 	generally
recommends the following guidance: if a liberally read complaint suggests the
plaintiff has a claim that is merely inadequately or inartfully pleaded, the
plaintiff ought to be given at least one chance to reframe. See Cledera v. United
States, 834 F. App’x 969, 972 (5th Cir. 2021). 	Although a pro se complaint
generally 	should 	not 	be 	dismissed 	without 	leave 	to 	amend, 	there 	is 	an
exception if any amendment to the complaint would be futile. 	Id. 	The Fifth
Circuit has interpreted the term “futility” to mean that the complaint as
amended would be subject to dismissal. 	Chandler v. United States, 338 F.
Supp. 3d 592, 600 (N.D. Tex. 2018). An amendment that fails to cure a lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction may be considered futile. Id.
Here, 	the 	Court 	lacks 	subject-matter 	jurisdiction, 	and 	the 	lack 	of
jurisdiction cannot be cured by an opportunity to amend. 	See Presidential
Candidate, 2025 WL 1911409, at *3 (collecting cases); Isom v. United States
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 20-cv-948, 2021 WL 2232052, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr.
28, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. TYESHA N. ISOM v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., No. 4:20-cv-948, 2021
Case 4:26-cv-02445 Document 9 Filed 04/17/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
WL 2224345 (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2021) (same); see also Sichanthavong v.
Hernandez, No. 2:22-cv-118, 2022 WL 2718528, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 13, 2022),
aff’d, No. 22-10694, 2022 WL 16707988 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2022) (“Additionally,
the Court finds Plaintiff’s claims to be so confusing, ambiguous, redundant,
vague, 	and 	unintelligible 	that 	amendment 	would 	be 	futile.” 	(internal
quotations omitted)). As such, allowing leave to amend would be futile.
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiffs’ Petition
for Leave to Proceed and Demand Relief (ECF No. 1) be DENIED and the case
be 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE 	for 	lack 	of 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction. 	In light of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction, the Court FURTHER
RECOMMENDS Plaintiffs’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF
No. 2) be DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 8) be DENIED
AS MOOT.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
Case 4:26-cv-02445 Document 9 Filed 04/17/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on April 17, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
_____________________________
Richard W Bennett
Case 4:26-cv-02445 Document 9 Filed 04/17/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6