Scott v. Unknown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
GENE EDWARD SCOTT, II §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § No. 3:26-cv-00864-D(BT)
§
UNKNOWN, §
Defendant. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Gene Edward Scott, II filed a pro se employment complaint
against an unknown defendant. Plaintiff alleges virtually no facts in support of his
Complaint. He states only: “Plaintiff is (has) legal entitlement to employment.
Plaintiff is never a ter. Plaintiff is 100% trustworthy. Thanks.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff says
that his case arises under an unspecified “employment act,” anti-age-
discrimination laws, and the Constitution. Id. at 3. His prayer for relief is difficult
to understand but references a Federal Marshal and an Air National Guard
member. Id. at 4.
For the following reasons, the District Judge should dismiss this action
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Legal Standards
The court “is duty-bound to examine its subject-matter jurisdiction sua
sponte.” Burciaga v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 871 F.3d 380, 384 n.4 (5th Cir.
2017).
Case 3:26-cv-00864-D-BT Document 6 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID <pageID>

2
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; “[t]hey possess only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by
judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
(citations omitted). Unless otherwise provided by statute, federal subject matter
jurisdiction requires: 1) an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or 2) complete diversity of citizenship
between adverse parties combined with an amount in controversy exceeding
$75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Regarding federal question jurisdiction, the most common cases “arising
under” federal law “are those in which federal law creates the cause of action.”
Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). In rare
situations, a case may arise under federal law “where the vindication of a right
under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.” Franchise
Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. California, 463 U.S.
1, 9 (1983).
But even if there is a claim under the Constitution or federal statutes, the
Supreme Court has stated that such suits should be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction where the alleged claim “is wholly insubstantial or frivolous.” Bell v.
Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946). The Fifth Circuit has found a claim is “wholly
insubstantial and frivolous” under Bell when that “claim has no plausible
foundation.” Carmichael v. United Techs. Corp., 835 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir. 1988)
(quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 416 (5th Cir. 1981)). “Moreover, a
Case 3:26-cv-00864-D-BT Document 6 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID <pageID>

3
court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
when the complaint is ‘patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question
suitable for decision.’” Isom v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2021 WL
2232052, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2021), rec. accepted 2021 WL 2224345 (E.D.
Tex. June 2, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Vasaturo v.
Peterka, 203 F. Supp. 3d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting, in turn, Best v. Kelly, 39
F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). This includes “bizarre conspiracy theories” and
“complaints resting on truly fanciful allegations.” Vasaturo, 203 F. Supp. 3d at 44.
In cases invoking diversity jurisdiction, each plaintiff’s citizenship must be
diverse from each defendant’s citizenship, and the amount in controversy must
exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (b). “The basis for diversity jurisdiction
must be ‘distinctly and affirmatively alleged.’” Dos Santos v. Belmere Ltd. P’ship,
516 F. App’x 401, 403 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “‘The failure to adequately
allege the basis for diversity jurisdiction mandates dismissal.’” Id. (quoting
Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 805 (5th Cir. 1991)).
While pleadings by pro se plaintiffs are construed liberally, see, e.g., Perez
v. United States, 312 F.3d 191, 194–95 (5th Cir. 2002); Mass v. McDonald’s Corp.,
2004 WL 2624255, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2004), the court “must presume that
a suit lies outside [its] limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal forum.” Howery v. Allstate Ins.,
243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). And “even though a
particular statute or rule need not necessarily be cited by name[,]” the party
Case 3:26-cv-00864-D-BT Document 6 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID <pageID>

4
asserting jurisdiction must allege the jurisdictional basis “affirmatively and
distinctly”; jurisdiction cannot be “established argumentatively or by mere
inference.” Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633, 636 (5th Cir. 1983)
(citations omitted). “[C]ourts are not obligated to search out the identity of a
party’s vaguely-pleaded claims.” Mass, 2004 WL 2624255, at *2. Ultimately, “[t]he
plaintiff is the master of his own pleadings, and even a pro se litigant has the right
to plead himself out of court, just as an attorney may do.” Estrada v. Dominguez,
2001 WL 506982, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 14, 2001).
Federal courts do not have to—and in fact, should not—wait for a Rule
12(b)(1) motion to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. On the
contrary, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The court
“is duty-bound to examine its subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” Burciaga,
871 F.3d at 384 n.4; see also Ins. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee,
456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (explaining that while under Rule 12(h) defenses for lack
of personal jurisdiction are waived if untimely, even an appellate court may review
subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte).
Analysis
Even construing Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, he fails to establish this
Court’s jurisdiction. He claims that federal question jurisdiction exists under “[t]he
employment act,” anti-age-discrimination laws, and the Constitution. Compl. at 3.
But Plaintiff alleges no facts in support of these claims. His bare reference to
Case 3:26-cv-00864-D-BT Document 6 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID <pageID>

5
federal statutes or the Constitution fails to establish federal question jurisdiction
without any underlying facts in support of the claims. See, e.g., Pidgeon v. Parker,
46 F. Supp. 3d 692, 699 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (“References to federal law or to the
United States Constitution in a plaintiff’s complaint do not, on their own, create
federal-question jurisdiction.”); Johnson v. Experian, 2023 WL 5167020, at *2
(N.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2023) (Toliver, J.) (“However, the mere mention of a federal
law or the bare assertion of a federal claim is insufficient to establish federal
question jurisdiction.”), rec. accepted 2023 WL 5166998 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2023)
(Lindsay, J.); Maguire v. Telcom Global Solutions, Inc., 2003 WL 124475, at *2
(N.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2003) (Fish, J.) (finding that bare reference to unspecified
“federal statutes regulating employment and employment discrimination” failed to
establish federal question jurisdiction).
Nor does Plaintiff establish diversity jurisdiction, as he fails to explicitly
allege complete diversity of citizenship or that more than $75,000 exclusive of
interests and costs is at issue. And there is no basis from Plaintiff’s Complaint to
infer diversity jurisdiction.
In sum, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case, and
it should be dismissed without prejudice.
Leave to Amend
Ordinarily, “a pro se litigant should be afforded an opportunity to amend his
complaint before it is dismissed.” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th
Cir. 2009). Even so, the Court need not grant leave to amend “if the plaintiff has
Case 3:26-cv-00864-D-BT Document 6 Filed 04/06/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID <pageID>

6
already pleaded his ‘best case.’” Id. at 768. As shown above, Plaintiff has not
established subject matter jurisdiction.
Moreover, Plaintiff has a pattern of filing frivolous actions throughout the
United States. See Scott v. Unknown Party, No. CV-24-02428-PHX-GMS, 2024
WL 4303258, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 26, 2024) (observing that “since 2003 Plaintiff
has filed at least 108 cases with [the District of Arizona).”); Scott v. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, 2024 WL 1069723 at *1, 4:24-cv-00049-BRW (E.D. Ark. January 24,
2024) (noting that Plaintiff filed more than six frivolous complaints in the Eastern
District of Arkansas). He should not be given an opportunity to replead, further
diverting court resources and unnecessarily burdening the legal system.
Recommendation
The District Judge should dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
SO RECOMMENDED
April 6, 2026.
______________________________
HON. R. RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00864-D-BT Document 6 Filed 04/06/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID <pageID>

7
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in
the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination
is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the
briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written
objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district
court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:26-cv-00864-D-BT Document 6 Filed 04/06/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID <pageID>