Jeffrey Cohen v. Brendan Hurson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00986-ELH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999711254]. Mailed to: Jeffrey Cohen. [15-6722]

Appeal: 15-6722

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6722

JEFFREY COHEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRENDAN A. HURSON, Federal Public Defender; DEBORAH L.
BOARDMAN, Federal Public Defender; JAMES WYDA, Federal
Public Defender,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-00986-ELH)

Submitted:

November 25, 2015

Before NIEMEYER
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

December 3, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Cohen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6722

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Cohen appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his

civil

action

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii)

(2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2) (2012), and designating
the dismissal as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
(2012).

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district

court’s judgment as modified.
A federal court is required to dismiss an action brought in
forma

pauperis

at

any

time

it

determines

the

action

“is

frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who

is

(2012);

immune
see

from

28

such

U.S.C.

relief.”
§ 1915A(b)

28

U.S.C.

(2012).

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
We

review

the

dismissal of a complaint as frivolous for abuse of discretion.
Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2004).
review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.

We
Home

Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna, 750 F.3d 427, 432 (4th Cir.
2014).
Cohen

first

argues

that

the

district

court

improperly

construed his action as asserting a civil rights claim pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).

While Cohen’s constitutional claim

alleging ineffective assistance by his federal public defenders
is more appropriately construed as seeking relief under Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
2

Appeal: 15-6722

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

U.S. 388, 397 (1971), we find no abuse of discretion in the
district

court’s

dismissal

of

this

claim

as

frivolous.

See

Christian v. Crawford, 907 F.2d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 1990) (per
curiam);

Cox

v.

Hellerstein,

685

F.2d

1098,

1099

(9th

Cir.

liberally,

see

1982).
Construing

Cohen’s

appellate

pleadings

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), he next challenges
the court’s dismissal of his complaint, to the extent it raised
a

state

law

jurisdiction.

legal

malpractice

District

courts

claim,

have

for

lack

original

of

diversity

jurisdiction

over

civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
and the dispute is between citizens of different states.
U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2012).

28

Because Cohen did not include in his

complaint any allegations relevant to his citizenship, he did
not meet his obligation to allege facts sufficient to establish
subject

matter

jurisdiction,

properly dismissed.

and

his

state

law

claim

was

See Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick,

Md., 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999).

However, the record

also provides no basis from which to affirmatively conclude that
the parties lacked diversity of citizenship.

See Mala v. Crown

Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 247-48 (3d Cir. 2013) (holding
that,

generally,

prisoner

presumptively

retains

his

citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction).

prior
Because

Cohen’s state law claim was properly dismissed for failure to
3

Appeal: 15-6722

Doc: 13

plead

facts

Filed: 12/03/2015

establishing

Pg: 4 of 5

subject

matter

jurisdiction,

that

dismissal “must be one without prejudice, because a court that
lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a
claim on the merits.”

S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n,

Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir.
2013) (hereinafter “Broadlands”).
Cohen

also

contends

that

the

district

court

erred

in

dismissing his action as frivolous and assessing a PLRA strike
against him on that basis.

An action is properly dismissed as

frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.”
the

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

district

court

properly

dismissed

Cohen’s

While

constitutional

claim as frivolous, the district court’s “alternative holdings
on the merits assertedly supporting its dismissal” of Cohen’s
state law claim “were beyond the power of the district court.”
Broadlands,

713

F.3d

at

185

n.4;

see

also

United

States

v.

Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 793 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[N]o other matter
can

be

decided

without

subject

matter

jurisdiction.”).

Moreover, neither a dismissal without prejudice nor a dismissal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction counts as a strike under
§ 1915(g).

See Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 657

F.3d

895

890,

(9th

Cir.

2011)

(lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction); McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 397 (4th
Cir. 2009) (dismissal without prejudice).
4

Because only part of

Appeal: 15-6722

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/03/2015

Pg: 5 of 5

Cohen’s action was subject to dismissal on a ground enumerated
under § 1915(g), the dismissal does not count as a strike.

See

Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635 F.3d 646, 651 (4th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly,

we

affirm

dismissing Cohen’s action.
reflect

that

Cohen’s

the

district

court’s

judgment

However, we modify the judgment to

putative

state

law

claim

for

legal

malpractice is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter

jurisdiction,

and

strike under § 1915(g).

that

the

dismissal

order

is

not

a

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

5