IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO.
In this case, the pro se plaintiff, Alonzo Austin,
appears to be asking this court to enter a judgment
confirming an arbitration award in his favor of $ 973.85
and awarding costs. Unfortunately for Austin, this
complaint is virtually identical to the one he filed with
this court last month, Austin v. MBNA America, 2006 WL
3349937 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (Thompson, J.), which was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. For the same reason,
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, this case must be
dismissed as well.
Case 3:06-cv-01071-MHT-DRB Document 3 Filed 12/04/2006 Page 1 of 5
Austin v. MBNA America
* In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th
Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions
of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the
close of business on September 30, 1981.
Federal district courts are courts of limited
affirmatively alleged by the party making a claim or
complaint. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298
U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Kirkland Masonry v. Comm’r of
Internal Revenue, 614 F.2d 532, 533 (5th Cir. 1980) (per
curiam).* Austin’s complaint fails to do this.
Nor does there appear to be any basis of subject-
matter jurisdiction that Austin could allege. The
Federal Arbitration (“FAA”) Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, does
not itself confer jurisdiction. Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp.
v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n.32 (1983).
Rather, § 9 of the FAA provides for confirmation of an
arbitration award only when the federal district court
has an independent basis for jurisdiction. Baltin v.
Case 3:06-cv-01071-MHT-DRB Document 3 Filed 12/04/2006 Page 2 of 5
Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir.