# Loyd v. Services for the UnderServed Inc.

> District Court, E.D. New York · October 21, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10305145

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** October 21, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10305145

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
KEYONA N. LOYD,

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
-against-
20-cv-1356(KAM)(LB)
SERVICES FOR THE UNDERSERVED INC.;
AQIYLA DUNLAP; KARLENE AUSTIN; NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2; JANE DOE 3;
JALEESA HARRISON; SHANNA GUTHRIE;
GLORIA ABITOL; BYRON SAVAGE; TIASHA
CODGINTON; SHAQUAWANA KIRKLAND;
TIA SMITH; PATRYCE MCQUEEN; TAYLOR
RIVERS; CHARLES RIVERS; JOHN DOE 1,

Defendants.
----------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Keyona N. Loyd brings this pro se action
invoking the court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted. For the reasons stated below, the
complaint is dismissed and plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to
file an amended complaint.
BACKGROUND
Keyona N. Loyd, a citizen of Brooklyn, New York,
brings this action against Services for the Underserved (“SUS”),
a private, not-for-profit social services agency, headquartered
in New York County, that provides mental health treatment and
housing assistance to individuals in need, and 16 individual
employees of SUS. See Our Services, Services for the
Underserved, https://sus.org/our-services (last visited Aug. 11,
2020). Plaintiff alleges that since 2011, she has been unfairly
treated and humiliated by employees of SUS, in relation to her
housing in two separate apartments operated by SUS. Plaintiff

sets forth a litany of grievances against various employees,
mainly related to monthly employee visits to her apartment,
which have caused her to “suffer from emotionally, headaches
d[ue] to stress, mental anguish, anxiety and frustration.” (ECF
No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”) 14.) Plaintiff seeks “three hundred
and eighty million dollars” in damages. (Id. 13.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court must
dismiss an in forma pauperis action when the action “(i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Although pro se
pleadings are held “to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9
(1980), a complaint must nevertheless plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
A pro se plaintiff must also “still comply with the
relevant rules of procedural and substantive law, including
establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over
the action.” Ally v. Sukkar, 128 F. App’x 194, 195 (2d Cir.
2005). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and
may not hear cases if they lack subject matter jurisdiction over

the issues presented. Singh v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Servs., 878 F.3d 441, 445 (2d Cir. 2017); Doe v. United States,
833 F.3d 192, 196 (2d Cir. 2016). Lack of subject matter
jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time by a
party or by the court sua sponte. See Henderson ex rel.
Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011) (“[F]ederal
courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not
exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must
raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties
either overlook or elect not to press.”). “The party invoking
federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that

jurisdiction exists.” Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137, 143
(2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Sharkey v. Quarantine, 541 F.3d 75, 82
(2d Cir. 2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). If subject
matter jurisdiction is absent, the district court must dismiss
the complaint regardless of the merits of the underlying action.
See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F. 3d 1182,
1188 (2d Cir. 1996); see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S.
500, 514 (2006).
DISCUSSION
The statutory provisions for federal subject matter
jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.
Federal question jurisdiction provides federal courts

jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Gallego
v. Northland Grp. Inc., 814 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2016)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331). A plaintiff properly invokes
section 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim
“arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Id.
Plaintiff purports to bring this action pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e,
et seq. (“Title VII”). Title VII provides that “[i]t shall be
an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or

refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to
discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a). Plaintiff’s claim
clearly fails as she does not have an employment relationship
with defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth any
other federal claims or otherwise assert a basis for federal
question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Nor does there appear to be a basis for diversity
jurisdiction. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction
over state law claims where the plaintiff and defendant are of
diverse citizenship and “the matter in controversy exceeds the

sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v.
Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 2012). For
a federal court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on
diversity, there must be complete diversity of citizenship
between plaintiff and all defendants. Bartlett v. Honeywell
Int'l Inc., 773 F. App’x 543, 547 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Diversity
jurisdiction is present when there is complete diversity between
the parties . . . .”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)); Pa. Pub.
Sch. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 772 F.3d 111,
117–18 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Subject matter jurisdiction is based on

28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires ‘complete diversity,’ i.e. all
plaintiffs must be citizens of states diverse from those of all
defendants.”). Plaintiff fails to establish that this court has
diversity jurisdiction over this action because her citizenship
is the same as the defendants.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In light of this
court’s duty to liberally construe pro se complaints and in an
abundance of caution, plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to file
an amended complaint. Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593 (2d Cir.

2000).
Should Plaintiff elect to file an amended complaint,
it must be captioned ”AMENDED COMPLAINT” and bear the docket
number 20-CV-1356 (KAM)(LB). Plaintiff must set forth in the
statement of claim sufficient factual content to allow the court
“to draw the reasonable inference” that each defendant named in
the amended complaint is liable for the misconduct or harm
caused to plaintiff, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and that such
conduct is in violation of a federal constitutional or statutory
right. The amended complaint shall replace the original
complaint in its entirety. That is, the amended complaint must

stand on its own without reference to the original complaint.
If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time
allowed or show good cause why she cannot comply, an order and
judgment dismissing this action shall be entered.
No summons shall issue at this time and all further
proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days. The court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be
taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is
denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 269
U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2020
Brooklyn, New York
/s/
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10305145. Public record. Not legal advice.