HENDERSON v. KESSLER INSTITUTE FOR REHABILITATION
Filing
3
OPINION. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 5/19/2016. (ld, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SAMEERAH HENDERSON
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 16-1093 (ES) (JAD)
v.
OPINION
KESSLER INSTITUTE FOR
REHABILITATION, a Select Medical
Company,
Defendant.
SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court by way of pro se Plaintiff Sameerah Henderson’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.E. No. 1-1). Having
considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately established
that her financial condition renders payment of the $400 filing fee a hardship. As such, the Court
directs the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint without pre-payment of the filing fees or
security. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Nevertheless, after a court makes a decision that a plaintiff is qualified for pauper status
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must then “screen” the Complaint to determine whether
the plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
Having thoroughly reviewed Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court sua sponte dismisses
Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal Courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction. According to the Supreme Court:
1
[t]he district courts of the United States, as we have said many times, are
“courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute,” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.
375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). In order to provide a federal
forum for plaintiffs who seek to vindicate federal rights, Congress has conferred on
the district courts original jurisdiction in federal-question cases-civil actions that
arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. In order to provide a neutral forum for what have come to be known as
diversity cases, Congress also has granted district courts original jurisdiction in
civil actions between citizens of different States, between U.S. citizens and foreign
citizens, or by foreign states against U.S. citizens. § 1332.
To ensure that diversity jurisdiction does not flood the federal courts with minor
disputes, § 1332(a) requires that the matter in controversy in a diversity case exceed
a specified amount, currently $ 75,000. § 1332(a).
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005).
Here, Plaintiff does not establish a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Indeed, Plaintiff
alleges that she was wrongfully terminated. (D.E. No. 1, Complaint at 4). Plaintiff does not allege
that this cause of action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States—as to
confer federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Moreover, Plaintiff and
Defendant both appear to be citizens of New Jersey, thus defeating diversity of citizenship pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint—that properly establisher subject matter jurisdiction,
within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Opinion and accompanying Order.
s/Esther Salas
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?