United States District Court, D. Kansas
DUSTIN D. COFFMAN, Plaintiff,
CHS GAS AND OIL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
D. Crabtree United States District Judge.
providing plaintiff multiple opportunities to allege federal
subject matter jurisdiction properly, he still fails to
assert any facts establishing that this court has
jurisdiction over this lawsuit. The court thus dismisses this
case without prejudice for lack of subject matter
filed a Complaint pro se on April 19, 2018, against four
defendants-CHS Gas and Oil, Western Division Jayhawk
Pipeline, Richard Peterson, and Timothy Robert Coffman. Doc.
1. Plaintiff's original Complaint spans 71 pages. And it
is quite difficult to understand. As best the court can
discern, plaintiff alleges that his cousin, Timothy Robert
Coffman, has harassed him via email, Facebook, and text
messages. Plaintiff also alleges that his cousin's
employers negligently failed to supervise their employee
because they have allowed Timothy Robert Coffman to commit
his harassment during work hours while using company servers.
the Complaint never alleged facts sufficient to establish
subject matter jurisdiction, the court ordered plaintiff to
show cause by May 25, 2018, why the court should not dismiss
the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. 3.
Plaintiff filed a response to the court's show cause
order. Doc. 6. It too is difficult to understand. But the
court cannot decipher anything in that response to provide a
basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
same day that he filed his response to the Order to Show
Cause, plaintiff also filed an “Amended Statement of
Claims to go with ECF #1.” Doc. 7. The Clerk of the
Court docketed the filing as an Amended Complaint.
2, 2018, Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer issued a Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 18), recommending that the district
court dismiss plaintiff's Complaint and Amended Complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Judge Birzer described: “Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, along with its attachments, spans 142 pages and is
even more confusing than his original pleading.” Doc.
18 at 3. The Amended Complaint adds three new defendants to
the case: Jay Debertin, Rick Dusek, and Jim Zappa. Plaintiff
contends Mr. Debertin is President and Mr. Dusek is Vice
President of CHS Gas and Oil, while Jim Kappa is its General
Counsel. Plaintiff states generally that Mr. Debertin, Mr.
Dusek, and Mr. Zappa are liable for negligence. And, in his
“Amended Statement of Claims, ” plaintiff appears
to amend his causes of action to include: (1) Due process
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) Due process
violation of equal protection of under the law under the 14th
amendment; (3) Violation of the 1st Amendment; (4)
Defamation; (5) “Li[bel]”; (6) Slander; and (7)
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“ongoing
tort [of] duress”). Doc. 7 at 1. He seeks $25 million
in compensatory damages and another $25 million in punitive
thoroughly reviewing plaintiff's Complaint, Amended
Complaint, and his several other filings (see Docs.
4, 5, 6, 8, 9), Judge Birzer concluded that plaintiff has
alleged no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
None of plaintiff's filings establish federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And none of his
filings allege facts sufficient to establish diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For these reasons,
Judge Birzer recommended that the district court dismiss
plaintiff's lawsuit for lack of subject matter
Birzer concluded her Report and Recommendation by explaining
to plaintiff that he must serve and file any objections he
has to the Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, within 14 days after service.
Doc. 18 at 12. She also advised plaintiff that failing to
make a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation
waives any right to appellate review of the proposed findings
of fact, conclusions of law, or recommended disposition.
See Id. (“Failure to make a timely objection
waives appellate review of both factual and legal
17, 2018, plaintiff filed a document titled “RESPONSE
TO ECF # 3 Crabtree's order to show cause is the cause of
action on record nullifying the statement of justice review
of show cause” and “Response to FILED BY CHIEF
JUSTICE HONORA[BLE] [Birzer] . . . .” Doc. 22 at 1.
Plaintiff's filing also seeks an extension of time for
defendant Timothy Robert Coffman to file an answer.
Id. For reasons explains below, plaintiff's
filings still fail to establish any basis for federal subject
matter jurisdiction. The court thus dismisses the case
Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that, after a magistrate judge
enters a recommended disposition on a dispositive matter, a
party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
magistrate judge's order within 14 days after being
served with a copy of the recommended disposition. Then,
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), the district court “must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.”). After making this determination, the district
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge . . . [or] may also receive further evidence or
recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Tenth Circuit requires that objections to a magistrate
judge's recommended disposition “be both timely and
specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the
district court.” United States v. One Parcel of
Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). As
stated above, an objection is timely if made within 14 days
after service of a copy of the recommended disposition.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). An objection is sufficiently specific
if it “focus[es] the district court's attention on
the factual and legal issues that are truly in
dispute.” One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d
at 1060. If a party fails to make a proper ...