Scott v. Kallimi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_____________________

No 25-CV-4398 (RER) (PK)

_____________________

MORRIS SCOTT and PATRICIA SCOTT

VERSUS

BENJAMIN KALLIMI, ANDREW TILEM, JUAN MARTINEZ, LEVI LANE,

CONCHO (OR CHONCO) BROWN

___________________

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

___________________

RAMÓN E. REYES, JR., District Judge:

On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff Morris Scott, appearing pro se, filed this action on his

own behalf and on behalf of deceased litigant Patricia Scott, concerning property in Kings

County. (ECF No. 1, (“Compl.”)). The Court grants Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).1 (ECF No. 2). As set forth below, Plaintiff’s complaint is

dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges the property located at 265 Covert Street (“the property”) in

Brooklyn, New York was stolen from his wife, Patricia Scott, by Defendant Benjamin

Kallimi through a false transfer of property. (Compl. at 7). Plaintiff further alleges that

Defendants forged Patricia Scott’s “power of Attorney and Transfer[] of Real property

1 Plaintiff Scott alleges that he is unhoused in Newburgh, New York (located in Orange County). (Compl.

at 1).

documents” while she was seriously ill and “illegally transferr[ed] 265 Covert [St.] into their

names.” (Id. at 9).

The events at issue occurred in 2019 according to exhibits attached to the

complaint, including a contract dated September 3, 2019, to sell the property signed by

Patricia Scott, and a separate contract dated September 30, 2019, to sell the property

signed by Plaintiff. (Compl. at 13, 16–18). Plaintiff also includes an obituary for Patricia

Scott indicating that she passed away on December 23, 2019. (Id. at 19).

Plaintiff seeks an injunction ordering “that defendants refrain from hacking

Plaintiff[‘s] devices, stop ha[]rassing the Plaintiff,” because “the defendants have and are

blocking and tampering with every device we have used to file this complaint.” (Id. at 4).

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on

its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible “when

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d

57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although all

allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable

to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court

must be mindful that the plaintiff’s pleadings should be held “to less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)

(per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also Harris v. Mills,

572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that even after Twombly, courts “remain obligated

to construe a pro se complaint liberally”).

Nonetheless, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed without paying the filing fee, the

Court must dismiss the action if the Court determines that 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

In addition, “[i]f 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). Federal subject

matter jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. §

1331, or when plaintiff and defendants are of diverse citizenship and the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “[F]ailure of subject matter jurisdiction

is not waivable and may be raised at any time by a party or by the court sua sponte. If

subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the action must be dismissed.” Lyndonville Sav.

Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir. 2000).

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff Cannot Represent Patricia Scott

At the outset, the complaint cannot proceed as filed by Patricia Scott. Although

federal law affords parties a statutory right to “plead and conduct their own cases,” 28

U.S.C. §1654, that statute does not permit “unlicensed laymen to represent anyone else

other than themselves.” Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (quotation

marks omitted); Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15, 20 (2d Cir. 2010) (“A person who has not

been admitted to the practice of law may not represent anybody other than himself.”).

Here, Plaintiff attempts to bring claims on behalf of Patricia Scott or her estate,2 but he

cannot do so as he does not allege that he is an attorney licensed to practice law. The

Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss, without prejudice, any claims filed on behalf of

Patricia Scott or the estate of Patricia Scott.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

To the extent Plaintiff alleges claims that are personal to him, the Court finds that

it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts is

limited. As set forth above, federal jurisdiction in available only when a “federal question”

is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when the plaintiff and defendants are of diverse

citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Here, Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. (See Compl. at 3).

However, Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants concern the validity of a contract for

the sale of the real property at issue, which does not arise under federal law. “Simply

raising a federal issue in a complaint will not automatically confer federal question

jurisdiction.” Perpetual Sec., Inc. v. Tang, 290 F.3d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 2002). There is no

subject matter jurisdiction if “the purported federal claim is clearly ‘immaterial and made

solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’”

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Glob. NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 132 (2d Cir. 2010) (citations

omitted); Because Plaintiff’s allegations do not arise under federal law and Plaintiff has

2 Plaintiff refers to Patricia Scott as deceased in the caption and includes an obituary notice for Patricia

Scott. Accordingly, only the estate of Patricia Scott could sue.

proposed no other plausible basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction,3 the

complaint must be dismissed. Gaston v. Shelter, No. 24-CV-04386 (NCM) (LB), 2024 WL

3360365, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2024) (“Because plaintiff has not alleged a valid basis

for the Court's federal question or diversity jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss plaintiff's

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed, without prejudice,

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Any claims on behalf of

the estate of Patricia Scott are dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of Court is

directed to terminate Patricia Scott as a plaintiff in this action.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close this case.

The Clerk of Court shall also mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order and note the

mailing on the docket.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this

Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied

for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45

(1962).

3 Complete diversity is lacking, and Plaintiff also does not plead facts to establish diversity jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Wis. Dep't of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998) (explaining that a case falls

within the federal district court's diversity jurisdiction only if diversity of citizenship among the parties is

complete, i.e., only if there is no plaintiff and no defendant who are citizens of the same state).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ramón E. Reyes, Jr. 6:03 P.M.

RAMÓN E. REYES, JR.

United States District Judge

Dated: August 14, 2025

Brooklyn, NY