Case: 13-13103 Date Filed: 05/08/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13103
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-00642-JES-DNF
DONALD JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BANK OF AMERICA,
CHAMPION MORTGAGE,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 8, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-13103 Date Filed: 05/08/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Donald Jones, proceeding pro se, brought this action against Bank of
America, N.A., and Champion Mortgage Company, claiming, among other things,
a violation of civil rights and fraud in connection with a reverse mortgage on his
residence. Because Jones’s complaint was incomprehensible and failed to allege
facts establishing the District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the District Court
dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Jones filed an amended complaint,
which did not cure the pleading deficiencies of the original complaint. Bank of
America moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s “short and plain statement of the grounds
for the court’s [subject matter] jurisdiction,” and the court granted the motion with
leave to amend. In its order, the court informed Jones that, if he filed a second
amended complaint, the complaint would have to contain allegations establishing
“diversity” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, specifically, an amount in
controversy exceeding $75,000, or federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1331, that is, a “cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States.” Record, Vol. 1 at Tab 24.
Jones filed a second amended complaint. Bank of America and Champion
Mortgage Company each moved to dismiss it under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court
assumed that the parties were diverse for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under §
2
Case: 13-13103 Date Filed: 05/08/2014 Page: 3 of 3
1332, but concluded that the second amended complaint’s allegations failed to
establish an amount in controversy that exceeded $75,000, as § 1332 requires.
Citing “San Fran. Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 483 U.S.522, 652
(1987) (the fundamental inquiry is whether there is a ‘governmental actor to whom
the prohibitions of the Constitution apply’),” the court found nothing in Jones’s
allegations indicating governmental involvement in his purported injury, so the
second amended complaint failed to establish § 1331 jurisdiction. The District
Court therefore dismissed the second amended complaint, without prejudice, under
Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Record, Vol. 1 at Tab 39.
Jones, still proceeding pro se appeals the dismissal. He concedes that his
second amended complaint fails to establish diversity jurisdiction under § 1332.
Jones does not concede that the second amended complaint fails to establish
federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, but we hold that it does; it fails to allege
governmental involvement in his alleged injury.
AFFIRMED.
3