United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
McNeil, Jr. (Plaintiff), a state court pretrial detainee
appearing pro se,  seeks relief under 42 U.S.C § 1983.
See Doc. 14. United States District Judge Stephen P.
Friot has referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), (C). See Doc. 5. After initial review,
the undersigned recommends the dismissal of this action,
without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
courts have an independent obligation to determine whether
subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a
challenge from any party, and thus a court may sua
sponte raise the question of whether there is subject
matter jurisdiction at any stage in the litigation.”
1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co.,
459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
(“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
Plaintiff's second amended complaint.
caption of his now-operative complaint,  Plaintiff lists
“Andy Slack Wrecker Service” as the single
Defendant. Doc. 14, at 1. But where then prompted in the form
complaint to “[s]tate information about . . . each
person or company listed as a defendant in the caption,
” Plaintiff names “Andy Slack, owner, Slack
Wrecker Service” as the Defendant. Id. at
Similarly, in the first of his two claims for relief,
Plaintiff alleges that “Andy Slack Wrecker
Service” violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Id. at 6. Where directed, however, “to specify
each person or entity that is a defendant for this particular
claim, ” Plaintiff states, “Andy Slack had soly
committed this act.” Id. “Andy
Slack” is also the only Defendant that Plaintiff names
in his second claim for relief from damage allegedly caused
by a breach of duty under Oklahoma law. Id. at 7.
Plaintiff does not effectively distinguish his claims among
“Andy Slack, ” “Andy Slack Wrecker
Service” and “Andy Slack, owner, Slack Wrecker
Service, ” id. at 1, 5-8, and because it is
irrelevant to the recommended disposition of this matter, the
undersigned generally refers to the named Defendant as
first alleges that Defendant Slack “violated the 14
Amendment . . . under the color of the law . . . by not
enforcing due process before relinquishing or rendering
[Plaintiff's] property to a person who had not properly
produced documentation or showed ownership to property
(keys)[.]” Id. at 6.
factual support for this claim, Plaintiff contends that
“[o]n September 19, 2018 [his] vehicle was towed by
[Defendant Slack]”; that the “Pauls Valley
Sherriff department contract with that company”; that
the “vehicle was impounded and stored at the property
of [Defendant Slack]”; “and that's where
Plaintiff's property was taken from.” Id.
Plaintiff contends “[Defendant Slack] breached his duty
to up hold the State of Oklahoma proceedure law that governs