Franklin v. Shawn Corey Carter

Background

Ephesian Johnny Franklin filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. He invoked federal diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction and asserted state-law claims against Shawn Corey Carter and Beyonce Giselle Knowles.

Franklin alleged that Knowles featured him in the music video “No Angel,” included defamatory scenes involving him, and that Carter and others threatened him. He also alleged hacking, social-media stalking, harm to people around him, damage to homes and vehicles, missing books and video footage, and physical, psychological, and financial injuries. He sought $40 million in damages and asked for emergency relief, including removal of his assets from the music video.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity—meaning that no plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state—and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court held that Franklin did not adequately plead the defendants’ citizenship because he provided business addresses rather than facts showing where they were domiciled or were citizens. The court also held that his complaint did not provide facts supporting the claimed $40 million in damages or showing a reasonable probability that the jurisdictional amount was satisfied.

The court found no basis for federal-question jurisdiction because Franklin did not invoke it and the allegations did not suggest a claim created by federal law. It therefore dismissed the state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Pleading Deficiencies and Leave to Amend

The court stated that Franklin’s allegations of defamation, harassment, and physical and financial injury were vague and conclusory and did not state a plausible claim for relief. Because he was representing himself and the court could not conclude that amendment would necessarily be futile, it granted him 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint detailing his claims and establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court warned that an amended complaint would be screened for substantive sufficiency and could be dismissed on the merits if it lacked supporting facts. It also stated that Franklin could not bring claims previously litigated by asserting a new legal theory or seeking a different remedy. If he did not amend within the allowed period, the clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, with 30 days’ leave to replead. The motions for emergency relief were denied without prejudice. The court directed the clerk to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.