Opinion
23-CV-9831 (LTS)
01-02-2024
THERYN RASHID JONES, Plaintiff, v. PAMELA S. ROTH, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at Orleans Correctional Facility in Albion, New York, brings this pro se action alleging that Defendant violated his rights. He sues Pamela Roth, whom he identifies as an attorney. By order dated November 21, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the complaint, but grants Plaintiff 30 days' leave to replead his claims in an amended complaint.
Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner's IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits -to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible - not merely possible - that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action alleging that Defendant, whom he retained as an attorney, “mis-handl[ed] two civil cases” Plaintiff sought to bring, causing both cases to be time-barred. (ECF 1, at 4.) The following allegations are taken from the complaint. In May 2018, Plaintiff was assaulted by correction officers at Albany County Jail. Plaintiff signed a contract with Defendant pursuant to which she would investigate his claims and file a case on his behalf. Over the following months, Defendant continued to assure Plaintiff that she was working on his case and that everything was “under control.” (Id. at 5.)
In March 2020, Plaintiff's face was cut while he was detained in the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center (“MCC”). Defendant “insisted” on filing a second case on Plaintiff's behalf about the MCC incident. (Id.) Plaintiff subsequently signed a second contract for Defendant to pursue the second case.
Since then, Plaintiff has attempted to get updates about his cases from Defendant, “only to be strung along by her.” (Id. at 6.) Defendant eventually admitted to Plaintiff that her license to practice law had been suspended and that all her cases were being turned over to another attorney, Ellie Silverman. When Plaintiff contacted Silverman, Silverman told him that she does not work with Defendant and that she never agreed to take over Plaintiff's cases.
Plaintiff seeks $10,000,000 in damages.
DISCUSSION
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutes, a federal district court has jurisdiction only when a “federal question” is presented or when plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. “‘[I]t is common ground that in our federal system of limited jurisdiction any party or the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, may raise the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.'” United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Prop. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Manway Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Hartford, 711 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1983)); 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 action.”); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative.”).
B. Federal Question Jurisdiction
To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal law if the complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)). Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Loc. 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (2d Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff checks the box on the complaint form to assert claims for violation of his federal constitutional rights under the court's federal question jurisdiction. Claims for violations of a constitutional right arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.A claim for relief under Section 1983 must allege facts showing that each defendant acted under the color of a state “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Private parties therefore generally are not liable under the statute. Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 406 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001)); see also Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 323 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties.”). Absent special circumstances suggesting concerted action between an attorney and a state representative, see Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 656 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970)), the representation of a defendant by private counsel in state civil or criminal proceedings does not constitute the degree of state involvement or interference necessary to establish a claim under Section 1983, regardless of whether that attorney is privately retained, court-appointed, or employed as a public defender. See Bourdon v. Loughren, 386 F.3d 88, 90 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25 (1981)); see also Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that legal aid organization ordinarily is not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983).
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).
As Defendant Roth is a private attorney who is not alleged to work for any state or other government body, Plaintiff cannot state a claim against her under Section 1983. Plaintiff's allegations suggest no other viable claim against Defendant under federal law. The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction of this action.
C. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction
Plaintiff's allegations suggest that he is attempting to assert claims of professional malpractice against Defendant. Malpractice claims arise under state law, not federal law. Plaintiff does not allege facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to consider his state law claims. To establish diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a plaintiff must first allege that the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states. Wis. Dep't of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998). For diversity purposes, an individual is a citizen of the State where he or she is domiciled, which is defined as the place where the individual “has his true fixed home . . . and to which, whenever he [or she] is absent, he has the intention of returning.” Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, there is a rebuttable presumption that a prisoner retains his preincarceration state citizenship rather than acquiring a new state citizenship. See Housand v. Heiman, 594 F.2d 923, 925 n.5 (2d Cir. 1979); Blumatte v. Quinn, 521 F.Supp.2d 308, 312 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). In addition, to demonstrate diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the plaintiff must allege to a “reasonable probability” that the claim is in excess of the sum or value of $75,000.00, the statutory jurisdictional amount. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in Orleans Correctional Facility, which is located in the State of New York, but he does not allege whether he was a citizen of New York prior to his incarceration. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not provide an address for Defendant or allege her state of citizenship. Because Plaintiff does not allege either his or Defendant's state of citizenship, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states.Plaintiff therefore does not allege facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction of this claims.
The Court assumes for the purposes of this order that Plaintiff has alleged facts demonstrating that his claims are worth in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court dismisses the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days' leave to replead his state law malpractice claims against Defendant in an amended complaint in which he alleges facts demonstrating that he and Defendant are citizens of different states and that his claims are worth in excess of the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.
LEAVE TO REPLEAD
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to demonstrate that the Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to consider his state law malpractice claims, the Court grants Plaintiff 30 days' leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims.
If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within the time allowed, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this action.
CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days' leave to replead his claims in an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to hold this matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered.
SO ORDERED.