“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative . . . .”
How later courts described this case
- “[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UMMEY SALMA,
Plaintiff,
20-CV-5748 (LLS)
-against-
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
NASA DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTER, et al.,
Defendants.
LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction,
28 U.S.C. § 1332. By order dated August 26, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to
proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth in this
order, the Court dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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); see
Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also
dismiss a complaint when 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).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this complaint, naming as Defendants the following entities: Auto Vehicle
Department Headquarter, Drug Enforcement Department, Health Department Headquarter,
NASA Department Headquarter, Natural Resources Department, Production Department
Headquarter. He does not provide addresses for any of the defendants or state whether they are
federal, state, or municipal entities. He does state that the events giving rise to his claims
occurred between 2017 and 2018, at a location he describes as “completely satellite & tracking
source.” (ECF No. 2, at 5.) As for some of the defendants’ personal involvement, Plaintiff states,
verbatim:
About NASA: My confident statement, there is a strong connection between earth
& solar system. [ ] About Auto Vehicle: 100% independent comfort challenge
with using motor voltage. Its [sic] clearly consider[ed] like a theory. [ ] About
Airway: Ozone theory existence.
(Id. at 7.) Plaintiff also claims that
The Antarctica was totally existenceless & full of spookyness. Only for me now it
is filled out full of activities. Antarctica’s fish not only 100% edible fish also
nutrition value consider like a safe booster pack. Also I showed the possibility to
merchandise & exporting in safety way.
(Id. at 8.)
Plaintiff does not seek money damages.
DISCUSSION
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, federal jurisdiction is available
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 & Commercial Workers Union, Local 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 . . . .”).
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 jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal
subject matter jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182,
1188-89 (2d Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s complaint does not involve any federal or constitutional right.
The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over his claims.
Plaintiff also does not allege facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity jurisdiction
over this action. To establish 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). In addition, 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). Because Plaintiff does not allege that his claims
satisfy this jurisdictional amount, this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over his claims.
District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to
cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it 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).
Because the defects in Plaintiff's complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court
declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's complaint, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.' See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 31, 2020
New York, New York
Louis L. Stanton
U.S.D.J.
' Plaintiff has consented to electronic service. (ECF No. 3.)