# Dunbar v. ABC World News Network

> District Court, S.D. New York · June 16, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11072466

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** June 16, 2025
- **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/11072466

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JANIS L. DUNBAR,
Plaintiff,
-against- 25-CV-1959 (LTS)
ABC WORLD NEWS NETWORK; ROBIN ORDER OF DISMISSAL
ROBERTS; MICHAEL STRAHAN; CARYN
ELAINE JOHNSON,
Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. By
order dated March 18, 2025, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons
set forth below.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint,
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 of the claims raised.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)
(holding that “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the
level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”); Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 (“[A]n action is
‘frivolous’ when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is
based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
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.
BACKGROUND
The following allegations are drawn from Plaintiff’s complaint:
In 2019, I contacted these people World News CEO and the others with a 10
page letter. Later in 2021 a flyer of my True Story Book and nothing. Curtis
James Jackson is my stalker sued with 25 other people there in NY.

(ECF 1 at 2.)1

Plaintiff further alleges:

In 2019, I sent the CEO and all 3 of these defendants a 10 page letter about Curtis
Jackson/50 Cent. The CEO cancelled his show FOR LIFE that’s all. 2 years later I
sent back a flyer of my book with his girlfriend Jamira Haines the title. And they
all kept quiet. . . .What happened to New stations investigating a tip. They do
world news. . . . I feel like the truth is being ignored because he’s famous and I’m
not.
(Id. at 5.)

1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation
are as in the original unless noted otherwise.
Plaintiff asserts that she is suing for “defamation of character” based on the following:
50 Cent was on the View reading me commercials don’t scratch rub. He came
back out rubbing his leg instead. I told a guy. He said he’s showing off for his
shorty. I live on the same street my book stared what a déjà vu I want to leave
now!

(Id. at 6.)

Plaintiff sues ABC Network World News, two news anchors (Robin Roberts and Michael
Strahan), and a talk show host from The View, Caryn Elaine Johnson. Plaintiff contends that she
has been injured because she has “been place[d] on psych holds 3 times” as a result of having
been called “crazy.” (Id. at 6.)2 The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s prior suit alleging that Defendant
Curtis James Jackson, III, who is known professionally as 50 Cent, has been stalking her for the
past ten years as lacking any plausible factual predicate. See Dunbar v. Jackson, 24-CV-4491
(LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2024).
DISCUSSION
A. Subject matter jurisdiction
The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited. Federal court
jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when
plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “[A]ny party or the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings,
may raise the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.” Manway Constr. Co.,
Inc. v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Hartford, 711 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1983); Ruhrgas AG v.

2 On the same day that Plaintiff filed this suit, she also filed several others. See Dunbar v.
Zuckerberg, No. 25-CV-1960-LTS (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 4, 2025); Dunbar v. Johnson, No. 25-
CV-1957-LTS (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 4, 2025) (claims against CEO of Black Entertainment
Television and others); Dunbar v. Casey, No. 25-CV-01961-LTS (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 4, 2025)
(asserting claims about radio hosts who interacted with Curtis Jackson).
Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by
the courts on their own initiative . . . .”). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
1. 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)). Plaintiff invokes the
Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but she does not reference any federal statutes. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants are news organizations that failed to pursue tips that she provided to
them in her 10-page letter.3 The facts alleged do not suggest any federal claim against the named
defendants. Plaintiff thus does not show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this

matter.
2. Diversity Jurisdiction
Plaintiff also does not allege facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity jurisdiction
of 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

3 Plaintiff’s letter to Defendants appears to relate to her allegations that Curtis Jackson
has been stalking her for the past ten years.
claim exceeds $75,000, 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).
“An individual’s citizenship, within the meaning of the diversity statue, is determined by
his domicile.” Johnson v. Smithsonian, 4 F. App’x 69, 70 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Palazzo v. Corio,

232 F.3d 88, 42 (2d Cir. 2000)). Domicile is “the place where a person has his true fixed home
and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of
returning.” Linardos,157 F.3d at 948. An individual may have multiple residences, but “[a]t any
given time, a person has but one domicile.” Palazzo, 232 F.3d at 42.
Plaintiff provides an address for herself in Connecticut, and she lists business addresses
for Defendants. These allegations are insufficient to show diversity of citizenship because
Plaintiff does not allege facts about where any of the individual defendants are domiciled.
Plaintiff thus fails to meet her burden of demonstrating diversity jurisdiction of this action.
District courts generally 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). Moreover, a
pro se plaintiff is generally afforded an opportunity to amend a complaint to replead allegations
about citizenship and “drop dispensable nondiverse defendants whose presence would defeat
diversity of citizenship.” Jaser v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 815 F.2d 240, 243 (2d
Cir. 1987). As explained below, however, it would be futile to grant Plaintiff leave to replead her
allegations about the citizenship of the parties because the allegations of the complaint do not
state a plausible claim for relief.
Plaintiff’s allegations that national news media, including Defendants ABC World News
and Johnson, host of The View, failed to respond to her 10-page-letter about Curtis Jackson do
not state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff does not include any facts plausibly
suggesting that any defendant had a duty to respond or take any action. Even when read with the
“special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman, 470 F.3d at 475, there is no legal theory on
which she can rely, see Denton, 504 U.S. at 33; Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437. It therefore would be
futile to grant Plaintiff leave to amend to replead her allegations regarding the citizenship of
defendants. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h), and as frivolous, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)().
The Court warns Plaintiff that further vexatious or frivolous litigation in this court may
result in an order barring Plaintiff from filing new actions in forma pauperis unless she receives
prior permission from the court to file a new action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h), and as frivolous, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)q@).
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2025
New York, New York Leni Lo Stentrn _
Louis L. Stanton
U.S.D.J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11072466. Public record. Not legal advice.