Steiner v. National Corporate Housing

Filing 6

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered denying 2 Motion hearing in federal court; denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This action is DISMISSED. (PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NATIONAL CORPORATE HOUSING, )
)
Defendant.
)
)
KEISHA STEINER,

Civil Action No.
15-11867-FDS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YOUNG, D.J.1
I.

May19, 2015

Introduction
Keisha Steiner (“Steiner”) brings this action against National Corporate Housing

(“NCH”) in which she asks that this Court resolve matters pending in an ongoing state court
eviction case. The plaintiff has filed motions for an emergency hearing and for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motions and dismisses
this action.
II.

Background
According to the complaint, the plaintiff has resided in her Boston apartment, which is

managed and/or owned by defendant NCH, since July 2014. She reports that since the beginning
of her tenancy, she has experienced harassment, vandalism, theft, privacy violations, and illegal
confiscation of her mail at her apartment. Steiner also represents that, in the past five years she
has experienced numerous civil rights violations and was not able to find an apartment because
of an error in her credit report.
Eviction proceedings against Steiner are pending in state court. The case is being heard

1

The case is assigned to Judge Dennis Saylor, who is not in Court today. Due to the timesensitive nature of the relief requested, the undersigned is addressing the pending motions and
the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

at the Edward Brooke Courthouse. The plaintiff claims that she has a “documented history of
illegal arrests and being illegally held by the Edward Brooke Courthouse.” Compl. (D. 1) ¶ 3.
Because of this, she does “not feel as if [she] will be given a fair hearing” at a proceeding
scheduled for May 21, 2015.2 Id. In both her complaint and motion for a hearing, she asks that
the federal court, rather than the state court, hold the hearing in her eviction case.
III.

Discussion
A.

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

A party filing a civil action must either pay a $350.00 filing fee and $50 administrative
fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) ($350.00 filing
fee for civil actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (proceedings in forma pauperis). An application to
proceed in forma pauperis must include “a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that
the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Here, Steiner has not provided a complete statement of her assets. In her motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, she represents that in the past year she has received income
from “[p]ensions, annuities or life insurance payments,” but, she does not identify the source
such money, the amount received, and the amount she expects to receive. In the absence of such
information, the plaintiff has not provided a complete statement of her assets and the Court
cannot determine whether the plaintiff is eligible for in forma pauperis status
B.

Jurisdiction
A court has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own jurisdiction. See McCulloch

v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In conducting
this review, the Court liberally construes the plaintiff’s complaint because she is proceeding pro
se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).

2

Steiner indicates that the hearing is on May 21, 2014, see Compl. ¶ 3, but the Court
assumes that reference to the year 2014 instead of 2015 is a scrivener’s error.
2

Assuming that eviction proceeding could be properly removed from state court under 28
U.S.C. § 1441 plaintiff could state a claim over which it has jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. §
1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (both assumptions being questionable based on the plaintiff’s filings),
the Court will abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this action.
The Supreme Court has explained that “[a]bstention from the exercise of federal
jurisdiction is the exception, not the rule.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United
States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976). “Abstention should rarely be invoked, because the federal
courts have a ‘virtually unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the jurisdiction given them.’”
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 705 (1992) (alteration in original) (quoting Colorado
River, 424 U.S. at 817). Nonetheless, there are several circumstances in which a federal court
should abstain from exercising jurisdiction in light of related state court proceedings. Courts
often abstain from hearing eviction matters to avoid interference with the state’s structure in
dealing with such matters. See, e.g., Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Dunn, C.A. No. 1400286, 2015 WL 1499077, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Mar, 31, 2015) (citing cases); Toth v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., C.A. No. 14-00395, – F. Supp. 3d –, 2015 WL 1038543, at *2 n.2 (D.D.C. Mar. 9,
2015); Glen 6 Assocs., Inc. v. Dedaj, 770 F. Supp. 225, 229 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). The plaintiff’s
concerns about fairness do not justify federal court intervention in the state court proceedings,
especially where the plaintiff does not allege that she has unsuccessfully sought additional relief
in state court (e.g., a petition for extraordinary relief) or that she would be unable to challenge on
appeal any deficiencies in the trial court proceedings.
IV.

Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons:
1.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

2.

The motion for a hearing is DENIED.

3.

This action is DISMISSED.

So ordered.
/s/ William G. Young
United States District Judge

3