Yin v. Thermo Fisher Scientific

Filing 6

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and directing plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on or before September 30, 2017. (Zaleski, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LEI YIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
17-10900-FDS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SAYLOR, J.
For the reasons stated below, the Court will (1) grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) direct plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
I.

Factual Background
Lei Yin, who is proceeding pro se, has filed an action in which he alleges that his former

employer, defendant Thermo Fisher Scientific, is liable for defamation and retaliation.
According to the complaint, Yin “was a team leader in Thermo Fisher, when the site closure
[occurred and] all [the] team member[s] had been laid off.” (Compl. at 4). It alleges that before
the layoff, Thermo Fisher had awarded him “a reward as outstanding employee to honor [his]
service to ThermoFisher.” (Id.). It further alleges that “[h]owever, recently, [he has] found out
that ThermoFisher had spread out a set of documents entitled Lei Yin’s HR files at
ThermoFisher, which [he] had no chance [to] review and never agree[d] on.” (Id.).
that the “very negative ‘manipulated’ set of documents hurt [him] deeply.” (Id.).

It alleges

In his prayer for relief, Yin asks that his personnel files be corrected and that he receive
$2 million in damages for defamation and retaliation. He invokes this Court’s jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1331.
II.

Analysis
A.

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Upon review of plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
concludes that plaintiff lacks fund to prepay the filing fee. The Court therefore will grant the
motion.
B.

Screening of the Complaint
1.

Court’s Authority to Screen the Complaint

Where, as here, a plaintiff is allowed to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee,
summonses will not issue until the court reviews the complaint and determines that it satisfies
the substantive requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That statute authorizes a federal court to
dismiss a complaint sua sponte if the claims therein are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
on which relief can be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A court has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own subject matter jurisdiction.
See McCulloch v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004). Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, “and the requirement of subject-matter jurisdiction ‘functions as a restriction on
federal power.’” Fafel v. Dipaola, 399 F.3d 403, 410 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Insurance Corp. of
Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982)). “The existence of
subject-matter jurisdiction ‘is never presumed.’” Fafel, 399 F.3d at 410 (quoting Viqueira v.
First Bank, 140 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1998)). Rather, federal courts “must satisfy themselves that

2

subject-matter jurisdiction has been established.” Id. “If 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).
In conducting the preliminary review of the complaint, the Court must liberally construes
the pleading because Yin is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972).
2.

Federal Question Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Yin has invoked this Court’s jurisdiction under § 1331, which provides that “district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, he has not alleged any facts from
which the Court can reasonably infer that Thermo Fisher violated his rights under federal law.
The complaint refers to claims for “defamation” and “retaliation.” A claim for
defamation arises under state law, rather than federal law. In some specific contexts, federal law
can provide the basis for a retaliation claim, such as when an employer takes an adverse action
against an employee because the employee has opposed illegal discrimination by the employer.
See 29 U.S.C. § 623(d); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); 42 U.S.C. § 12203. But not all retaliation
violates federal law. Even assuming that defendant’s alleged retaliatory action was sharing Yin’s
personnel file, he has not made any suggestion that it was done because he had opposed
discriminatory practices by Thermo Fisher.1 Thus, the mention of “retaliation” does not set forth
a claim that would provide a basis for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under § 1331.

Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). At a minimum, the
complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Calvi v. Knox County, 470 F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v.
Hernández, 367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir. 2004)). This means that the statement of the claim must “at least set forth
minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when, where, and why.” Id. (quoting Educadores, 367 F.3d at 68). The
plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his claim “requires more than labels and conclusions.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A court is not “bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as
a factual allegation.” Id. (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986))
1

3

3.

Diversity Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Federal district courts also have jurisdiction over certain actions in which the parties are
of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332
(“§ 1332”). For purposes of § 1332, a party is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled. See
Garcia Perez v. Santaella, 364 F.3d 348, 350 (1st Cir. 2004). A corporation is a citizen of every
state in which it has been incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of
business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Here, it appears that Yin and Thermo Fisher both citizens of Massachusetts. Yin
provides a Massachusetts street address, leading the Court to presume that he is domiciled in
Massachusetts. Publicly-available state records indicate that the Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
has its principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts.2 If Yin and Thermo Fisher are
both citizens of Massachusetts, subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332 does not exist.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
1.

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

2.

No later than September 30, 2017, plaintiff Lei Yin shall show cause why this
action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Specifically, he must demonstrate either that (1) his claim arises under federal
law, or (2) the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. Failure to comply with this directive may result in dismissal of
the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

2

See Business Entity Summary for Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., which can found on the web page of the
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?FEIN=042209186&SEARCH_TYPE=1 (last
viewed August 10, 2017).

4

So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge
Dated: August 31, 2017

5