Opinion
21-CV-1699 (CM)
04-01-2021
JANESSA JORDAN-ROWELL, Plaintiff, v. TD BANK, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL :
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff submitted the complaint without the filing fees or a completed and signed request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). By order dated March 1, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fees or submit a completed and signed IFP application. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff paid the filing fees on March 23, 2021.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has the authority to dismiss a complaint, even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fees, if it determines that the action is frivolous, Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (citing Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16-17 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that Court of Appeals has inherent authority to dismiss frivolous appeal)), or that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Moreover, the court "has the power to dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim," Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 609 n. 11 (2d Cir. 1980), so long as the plaintiff is given notice and "an opportunity to be heard." Thomas v. Scully, 943 F.2d 259, 260 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam); see also Perez v. Ortiz, 849 F.2d 793, 797 (2d Cir. 1988); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 301 & n. 3. The Court is obliged, however, 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).
Although pro se litigants enjoy the Court's "special solicitude," Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam), their pleadings 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. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader's favor. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). But the Court need not accept "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action," which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). As set forth in Iqbal: "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement." Id. (internal citations, quotation marks, and alteration omitted). 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
Using the Court's general complaint form, Plaintiff Janessa Jordan-Rowell brings this action invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction. On page 2 of the complaint form where Plaintiff is asked which of her federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated, Plaintiff writes, "My funds from the check that I was given to in person for $20,000 and deposited on January 28, 2021 was put on hold and the check cleared on January 29, 2021. Put my account in Fraud Dept." (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff indicates that she is a citizen of New York and that Defendant TD Bank is located in Rockville Centre, New York.
Plaintiff alleges that she deposited a check in the amount of $20,000 into her account at TD Bank on January 28, 2021. She asserts that the check cleared, but she never withdrew any money from her account. Plaintiff alleges that although the check cleared, Defendant put a hold on the funds, and reported the check as a fraud because Defendant did not want Plaintiff to have the funds. Plaintiff attaches to her complaint a copy of a claim that she filed with Federal Reserve Consumer Help (FRCH), a response from FRCH informing Plaintiff that her complaint was being forwarded to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Plaintiff also attaches correspondence from TD Bank that appears to belie her claim. In its January 29, 2021 correspondence, Defendant advised Plaintiff that to protect her account, the availability of funds was delayed because of an indication that "the check may not be paid." (Id. at 12.) In its February 3, 2021 correspondence, Defendant advised Plaintiff that "the maker of the check confirmed that the check was not valid and the funds are being returned." (Id. at 14.)
Plaintiff seeks "money damages for one trillion dollars for reporting the cleared check for $20,000 as fraud and returning the funds to the check issuer bank account[.] [W]illing to accept $75,000 which is the highest amount to sue in federal court." (Id. at 6.)
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, 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 . . . .").
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)). 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). Here, Plaintiff has alleged no facts suggesting that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over her claims.
2. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction
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). Plaintiff alleges that she and Defendant are both located in New York. Additionally, even though Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of "one trillion dollars," she does not allege that her claim satisfies the jurisdictional amount. The Court therefore lacks diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff claims.
B. Venue
To the extent that the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Rockville Centre, Long Island, New York, venue for Plaintiff's claims is not appropriate in this Court. Rockville Centre, New York is located in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Under the general venue provision, a civil action may be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . ; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as
provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For venue purposes, a "natural person" resides in the district where the person is domiciled. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1). And "an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2).
If an action is filed with the wrong district court, the court "shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This provision vests broad discretion with district courts to decline to transfer a case where it would not be in the interest of justice to effect such a transfer. See Reese v. CNH America, LLC, 574 F.3d 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2009). Because Plaintiff fails to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claim, the Court declines to transfer her claim.
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff has consented to receive electronic service of notices and documents in this case. (ECF No. 2.)
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. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2021
New York, New York
/s/_________
COLLEEN McMAHON
Chief United States District Judge