United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
District Court has referred this matter to this Court under
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for a determination of whether
federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists. [Doc. #4].
Pro se defendant Melinda Price removed the
above-captioned matter to this Court in which she raises
various domestic claims against her ex-husband, plaintiff
Bryan Bedi, before, during, and after divorce and
child-custody proceedings. She further alleges violations of
her civil and due process rights on the part of her
ex-husband and - although it is unclear - the state courts.
October 28, 2019, this Court ordered Melinda Price to show
cause by Friday, November 22, 2019 as to why this case should
not be summarily dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). On
November 13, 2019, Price responded. [Doc. #6]. On November
22, 2019, she filed an Addendum Answer to Rule to Show Cause.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) provides for summary dismissal
sua sponte, should the Court determine that a case
is frivolous. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides in pertinent
part as follows:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
(B) the action or appeal -
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii) (emphasis added). In
plain language, Section 1915 requires dismissal if the Court
is satisfied that the case fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. 
Court has permitted the plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis in the instant proceeding under the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. Â§1915(a). However, summons has not issued in
order to allow the Court to review plaintiff's complaint
to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of the
federal in forma pauperis statute. On its face,
plaintiff's complaint fails to meet the requirements of
the statute. There exists no absolute right to proceed in
forma pauperis in federal civil matters; instead, it is
a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees
when it is apparent that the claims do not lack merit on
their face. 
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. "Subject
matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and the district court
'shall dismiss the action' whenever 'it appears
by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court
lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter.'"
Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F.3d 690, 693 (5th
Cir.1995) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)). Price premises
federal jurisdiction on “[f]ederal violations of such
gross negligence of your movers' civil rights and right
to due process that this case warrants these proceedings be
removed from the lower courts .. . . .” [Doc. #1 at p.
1]. But a review of the complaint reveals that no federal
question exists here. Disputes arising in state-court divorce
and child-custody proceedings do not necessarily raise
sufficient federal questions so as to confer upon a federal
district court subject matter jurisdiction. See Brown v.
Hammonds, 747 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1984).
even were Price to allege violations of her civil rights and
due process, such claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
which necessarily must be committed by a state actor. The
United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted:
To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege
facts tending to show (1) that he has been deprived of a
right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States, and (2) that the deprivation was caused by ...