"Plaintiff Alleges He Fronted Howell Drugs in Exchange for a Promise to Pay Plaintiff Within the Week"

From McElrath v. MetaQuest, decided Friday by Magistrate Judge Kaymani West (D.S.C.):

Plaintiff alleges he fronted Howell drugs in exchange for a promise to pay Plaintiff within the week. Plaintiff claims he and Howell agreed that Plaintiff would be allowed to confiscate Howell's enclosed trailer if Howell failed to pay. Plaintiff says Howell failed to pay him, and he confiscated the trailer. Plaintiff states Howell filed charges against him for theft of his trailer, and he was charged with grand larceny and put in jail.

Plaintiff alleges Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, and MetaQuest allowed [Howell and other defendants] to post Plaintiff's entire criminal record on the social media website to support slandering statements about Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges the Howells and Wells also posted false statements about Plaintiff, together with degrading and humiliating comments, with ill intent to ruin Plaintiff's reputation and any dreams he had of becoming a man of political power. Plaintiff also claims the Howells and Wells destroyed his chance of gaining decent employment.

No federal jurisdiction over this case that's brought under state tort law, says the court. (What, you expected a decision on the substance?)

Comments

[Michael P]

"(“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,"

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

[SRG]

This reminds me of Everet v Williams

[Bored Lawyer]

"What, you expected a decision on the substance?"

I don't know if this was meant as sarcasm. But the Supreme Court has been adamant that a federal court must first consider subject matter jurisdiction before anything else.

[Eugene Volokh]

Oh, I don't mean to condemn the court here -- just to observe that, as the linked-to post suggests, the lawyer's true superpower is to turn all questions into questions about procedure.

[Bored Lawyer]

Fair enough, but subject matter jurisdiction is a product of SCOTUS decisions, not clever lawyering.
When I was a junior associate, I helped a partner create a presentation on employment law. I found a Third Circuit employment case, that threw out pendent state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding they were not sufficiently related to the federal claims in the case. This was after five years of litigation. The partner and her audience found the case disturbing.
I use to say there are two things that are guaranteed to make a judge sit-up and take notice: the word "settle" and the words "subject matter jurisdiction."

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it's why some of us think that the justice system is on borrowed time as the whole country knows this.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Yeah, well, chicanery abounds here in the banana republic of NC too. If you appear as a plaintiff pro se, that's code to the judge: "Dismiss me sua sponte." If (s)he can't find a suitable technicality, (s)he'll fabricate one. If you go to the clerk's office to check the file, don't be shocked by all the interpolations, white-out, liquid paper, and spoliation.

We had a judge here recently call a felony preliminary hearing and demand the ADA proceed "to make a point," although the attorney for the indigent accused was not present. At least the defendant was present but handcuffed to the grid of his cage with a barred window to peer into the courtroom. The judge then quickly bound the man over. I remember when I found the ph a priceless tool for discovery.
Four members of the NC Supreme Court publicly reprimanded the judge, but three dissented by recommending he receive a secret letter of caution. The defendant was black and so was the dissenting justice, Anita Earls, who wrote a peevish dissent. Apparently Anita does not know the open secrets about this serial offender in a black dress, with his notorious history of outrages against due process of law. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that elected judges are merely politicians in robes. When this judge runs to hold onto his robe, the campaign spectacle reminds me of Don Corleone's wedding feast. This last election of judges there was no opposition. No attorney is brave enough for the risk. So the courthouse is a Dem monopoly and no opposition anywhere.

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, Hunter Biden's no-less-colorful background didn't prevent him from "gaining decent employment" (quite remunerative actually!), and we may yet see him "becom[e] a man of political power" -- he was a Navy officer, you know! (Though he did suffer the unfortunate setback of losing his commission due to cocaine use). So, maybe there's still hope for Mr. McElrath!

[ReaderY]

There are thousands of frivolous pre se lawsuits. Why pick this one?

Was it that a drug dealer jailed for stealing a trailer over alleged non-payment of a drug debt who sues Facebook for truthfully reporting the conviction and sentence represents a particularly amusing example of chutzpah that will especially entertain the blog’s audience?

Or is it that this suit happens to mention libel, and thus comes within the search filter’s grasp, even though it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction?

Don’t lots of frivolous pro se cases allege libel? Or did this case happen to be a particularly amusing, chutzpadik one?

Or perhaps a particularly strong example of the pitfalls of self-representation? A lawyer might perhaps have warned the plaintiff that in South Carolina, convictions for drug dealing can get harsher sentences than mere trailer stealing, and trailer stealing to facilitate a drug dealing enterprise might get harsher sentences still, so it might be best not to bring up the circumstances of the trailer stealing to a court.