Combs v. Salvador Rosales et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JACK COMBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM SALVADOR ROSALES, ET
AL,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 4:25-cv-04767
JUDGE DENA PALERMO’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a pro se mortgage foreclosure action. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff asserts
federal question jurisdiction as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 1
at 3. Plaintiff asserts that improper mortgage company procedures, including
servicing and “improper noticing,” led to a denial of his due process and other
constitutional rights. ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff raises fraud, negligence, and
misrepresentation as causes of action. ECF No. 1 at 5.
Although no party contested subject matter jurisdiction, the Court has an
independent obligation to determine subject matter jurisdiction. See Benton v. Tex.
Dep’t of Criminal Justice, No. 4:24-CV-0112, 2024 WL 3237543, at *1 (S.D. Tex.
May 23, 2024), adopted, No. 4:24-CV-00112, 2024 WL 3246071 (S.D. Tex. June
26, 2024) (“Federal courts have an affirmative duty to examine sua sponte the basis
for subject matter jurisdiction.”) (citing Union Planters Bank Nat. Assn. v. Salih, 369
F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2004)). Concerned it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 03, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04767 Document 11 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Court entered a show cause order and ordered Plaintiff to demonstrate how the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims by November 18, 2025. ECF No. 10.
Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order, which in and of itself is ground for
dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.
Based on the Court’s independent review, it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the instant case. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s pleading alleges that Plaintiff
and Defendants are citizens of Texas, and therefore, fails to establish diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ECF No. 1 at 1–2.
Plaintiff’s pleading also fails to establish a basis for federal subject matter
jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Federal question jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1331 ‘exists when “a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that
federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily
depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”’” Fisher v. Harmony
Pub. Sch., No. 5:23-CV-183-H-BQ, 2023 WL 9102235, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30,
2023), adopted, No. 5:23-CV-183-H-BQ, 2024 WL 56320 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2024)
(quoting Borden v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 2009)). “A federal
question exists ‘if there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial,
disputed question of federal law.’” Id. (quoting In re Hot-Hed Inc., 477 F.3d 320,
323 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)). Plaintiff’s claims and injuries typically arise under
Texas state law, and his vague and conclusory allusions to violations of his
Case 4:25-cv-04767 Document 11 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
constitutional rights are insufficient to raise a federal question. See Fisher, 2023 WL
9102235, at *3; Blackburn v. Lubbock FBI, No. 5:23-CV-161-H-BQ, 2023 WL
6139457, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2023), adopted, No. 5:23-CV-161-H-BQ, 2023
WL 6444257 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2023).
There is no basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this
case. Plaintiff’s claims should be sua sponte dismissed. See Benton, 2024 WL
3237543, at *1 (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)).
The 	Parties 	have 	fourteen 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); F ED. R. C IV .
P. 72(b). Failure to file timely objections will preclude review of factual findings
or legal conclusions, except for plain error. Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d 353, 358
(5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on December 2, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
________________________________
Dena Hanovice Palermo
United States Magistrate Judge
______________________________
Dena Hanovice Palermo
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04767 Document 11 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3