Howard v. Cross

Background

Joseph Howard, who represented himself, objected to a February 24, 2023 report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. The recommendation advised dismissing Howard’s amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court’s legal authority to hear the case.

Jurisdictional analysis

The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Howard objected independently and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error. It concluded that Howard had not shown either basis for federal jurisdiction that he raised.

First, Howard argued that an alleged violation of his right to travel created a federal question. The court found that he did not identify a federal statute creating a private right of action.

Second, Howard did not establish diversity jurisdiction. The complaint identified the defendants as residents of Dakota County, Minnesota and identified Howard’s residence as Goodhue County, Minnesota, while also asserting that he was a citizen of a foreign state. The court found that Howard offered no evidence of diverse citizenship beyond theories that federal courts have rejected.

The court also found that Howard had not alleged enough detail about damages to determine whether the amount in controversy could exceed $75,000. Howard described being unlawfully incarcerated for many hours, or being held for several hours on two occasions, but the court found those allegations insufficient even assuming the damages rate Howard cited.

Ruling

The court accepted the report and recommendation in its entirety. Judge Jerry W. Blackwell overruled Howard’s objection, accepted the recommendation, dismissed Howard’s amended complaint without prejudice, and denied his motions for temporary restraining orders as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.