Spitters v. Spitters

Background

Pro se plaintiff Thomas H. Spitters sued Gary Loebner and unspecified members of the Spitters family. He alleged, among other things, that the defendants were misspending his savings, requiring unnecessary medical treatment, and subjecting him to spurious litigation in state court. His complaint asserted five claims involving lack of care, loyalty, diligence, an agency duty not to harm, and fiduciary duties.

Spitters applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. The court had previously granted him permission to amend because his complaint did not clearly identify a basis for federal jurisdiction. Spitters filed a complete renewed fee-waiver application but declined to file an amended complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court granted Spitters’ application to proceed without paying the filing fee because his application showed that he could not afford the filing fee due to a lack of employment, savings, or other financial resources.

Because Spitters was proceeding without paying the fee, the court was required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court concluded that the complaint did not provide a clear basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case.

The complaint did not clearly support federal-question jurisdiction because the claims appeared to be state-law tort claims, and Spitters did not allege a violation of a federal statute or otherwise identify a federal-law issue. The complaint also did not clearly support diversity jurisdiction. The court explained that diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity, meaning that no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant, along with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court stated that both Spitters and Gary Loebner reside in California.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The dismissal was without prejudice, and the court dismissed without leave to amend because Spitters had declined the earlier opportunity to amend.

The court separately explained that it had no authority to order removal of a pending state-court case. If Spitters sought to remove that case, the court stated that he would need to follow the process in 28 U.S.C. § 1446, including filing a notice of removal as a new federal case if the case was removable and the deadline had not passed.