Opinion
19-CV-8165 (CM)
01-10-2020
MIGUEL RIOS, Plaintiff, v. MTA; CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE :
Plaintiff, currently detained in the Anna M. Kross Center (AMKC) on Rikers Island, proceeds pro se. He uses this Court's Civil Rights Complaint form to bring claims arising from a slip and fall that occurred on a New York City subway platform prior to his detention. By order dated December 18, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis ("IFP"). For the reasons set forth below, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, within 30 days of the date of this order, why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner's IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 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), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if 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). 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.
The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief "that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action," which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 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
Plaintiff, currently a pre-trial detainee, brings this action arising from events that occurred prior to his detention. Plaintiff alleges that on March 21, 2019, while riding the Number 6 subway train in Manhattan, he slipped and fell "on M[etropolitan] T[ransportation] A[uthority] property d[ue] to [a] faulty platform and/or foundation." (ECF No. 1, at 3.) Plaintiff hit his head, lost consciousness, and was rushed to the emergency room. He alleges that, as a result of the fall, he suffered head injury, a concussion, a broken right leg, and mental anguish.
Plaintiff typed the complaint using all capital letters. For readability, the Court here uses regular capitalization. --------
Plaintiff sues the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the City of New York. He seeks money damages.
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).
Plaintiff brings his claims using the Court's form for filing a complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a "state actor." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).
Plaintiff's allegation that his slip and fall was caused by a "faulty platform and/or foundation" does not implicate the Court's federal question jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the complaint form's invocation of § 1983, Plaintiff appears to be asserting state law tort claims. Plaintiff's injuries from the slip and fall are the legal basis of his claim, and he does not allege a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right. Because Plaintiff does not allege facts demonstrating a federal law claim, his complaint does not demonstrate that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.
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). With respect to a plaintiff who is incarcerated, "[i]t is well-established that a prisoner does not acquire a new domicile when he is incarcerated in a state different from his previous domicile. Instead the prisoner retains his pre-incarceration domicile for diversity purposes." Fermin v. Moriarty, No. 96-CV-3022 (MBM), 2003 WL 21787351, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
In addition, a plaintiff must allege to a "reasonable probability" that the claim is in excess of the sum or value of $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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court can dismiss a complaint for failing to plead that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, but only if there is "a legal certainty from the complaint that plaintiff cannot recover sufficient damages to invoke federal jurisdiction." Zacharia v. Harbor Island Spa, Inc., 684 F.2d 199, 202 (2d Cir. 1982); see also Ochoa v. Interbrew America, Inc., 999 F.2d 626, 628-29 (2d Cir. 1993) ("[I]n determining whether a challenged jurisdictional amount has been met, district courts are permitted only to assess the allegations in a complaint and not the validity of any asserted defenses.").
Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate diversity of citizenship. The complaint indicates that Defendants are citizens of New York, and that Plaintiff is currently detained in New York. But the complaint does not state where Plaintiff resided before he was detained. If Plaintiff resided outside of New York, he may be able to demonstrate diversity of citizenship. If Plaintiff resided in New York, complete diversity is lacking.
B. Order to Show Cause
Based on the foregoing, it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court directs Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty days from the date of this order, why the Court should not dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To establish that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he and Defendants are citizens of different states, and that his claim is in excess of $75,000. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order, or if his response fails to address the deficiencies in this order, the Court will dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Assocs., 182 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 1999). ("[W]here a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it also lacks the power to dismiss with prejudice.").
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket.
The Court orders Plaintiff, within 30 days of the date of this order, to state facts showing that the Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this action. A declaration form is attached to this order.
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: January 10, 2020
New York, New York
/s/_________
COLLEEN McMAHON
Chief United States District Judge __________ Write the first and last name of each plaintiff or petitioner. -against- __________ Write the first and last name of each defendant or respondent. Case No. ___ CV __________
DECLARATION
__________ Briefly explain above the purpose of the declaration, for example, "in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment," or "in Response to Order to Show Cause." I, __________ , declare under penalty of perjury that the following facts are true and correct:
In the space below, describe any facts that are relevant to the motion or that respond to a court order. You may also refer to and attach any relevant documents.__________ Attach additional pages and documents if necessary. __________
Executed on (date)
__________
Signature __________
Name
__________
Prison Identification # (if incarcerated) __________
Address __________
City __________
State __________
Zip Code __________
Telephone Number (if available)
__________
E-mail Address (if available)