Stankovic v. Wambua et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Pltff's 2 Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis are granted and these two actions (12-cv-3215 and 12-cv-3216) are consolidated solely for the purpose of this Order. Pltff's complaints are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. (Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 7/6/2012) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)

'~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FILED

-------------------------------------------------------------)(

~'II

~~RK'S OFFICE
NOT FOR PUBL~T COURT E.D.N.Y.

*

SNEZANA STANKOVIC,

JUL 0 6 2012

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
SROOKI.VN OFFICE

Plaintiff,
-againstDAVID M. FRANKEL, City of New York,
Dept. of Finance Commissioner,

12 CV 3215 (WFK) (RER)

Defendant.

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
-------------------------------------------------------------)(
SNEZANA STANKOVIC,
Plaintiff,
12 CV 3216 (WFK) (RER)
-againstMATHEW M. W AMBUA, Commissioner of
NYC Dept ofHUD,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------)(
KUNTZ, United States District Judge:
On June 21, 2012, plaintiff Snezana Stankovic filed these two pro se actions. 1 Plaintiffs
requests to proceed in forma pauperis are granted and these two actions are consolidated solely for
the purpose ofthis Order. Plaintiff's complaints are dismissed as set forth below.
Background
Plaintiff's complaints are typically sparse. In the first action, she states: "overtaxation and
property classification 2000-2008 income vs. expenses." No. 12 CV 3215. In the second action, she
states: "on finance invoice/property taxation (I) overcharge 1575.90 for non-rendered emergency
services ... (2) 500.00 violation paid!HPD error charge (heating cost)." No. 12 CV 3216.

1

*

Plaintiff has filed nearly 20 cases since May 2012. See infra p. 4.

~

~~

Standard of Review
In reviewing plaintiffs complaints, the Court is mindful that, "a pro se complaint, however

inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, a
complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim will be considered "plausible on its
face" "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Nonetheless, pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, the Court must dismiss a complaint if it
determines that the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Finally, 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); accord Cave v. East

Meadow Union Free School Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d Cir. 2008).
Discussion
Plaintiff has not established that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these actions.

See, e.g., Rene v. Citibank, 32 F.Supp.2d 539, 542 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). The subject matter jurisdiction
of the federal courts is limited. Federal jurisdiction in available only when a "federal question" is
presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when the plaintiff and defendants are of diverse citizenship and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff cites to the in forma pauperis
("IFP") statute as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1348 as the bases for jurisdiction. The IFP statute
does not provide a basis for jurisdiction and sections 1345 (United States as plaintiff) and 1348
(Banking association as party) do not apply.
2

To the extent plaintiff seeks to challenge the City or State's tax and or property classification,
this Court lacks subject matter over these complaints. The Tax Injunction Act ("TIA'') provides that
[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax
under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State."
28 U.S.C. § 1341; Long Island Lighting Co. v. Town of Brookhaven, 889 F.2d 428, 431 (2d Cir.
1989); see also Bernardv. Vill. ofSpring Valley, 30 F.3d 294, 297 (2d Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs claims
of "overtaxation" and "overcharge"- as sparse as they are- appear to challenge local tax matters.
Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the actions are dismissed. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3).
Even if plaintiff is not challenging a local tax matter, there are deficiencies in her complaints
which would not allow the cases to proceed. For example, plaintiff fails to plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. There is no "factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for [any]
... misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. See Compl, No. 12 CV 3215 at 'If III; Compl., No.
12 CV 3216 at 'If III. Plaintiff also fails to allege how each of the named defendants, Commissioner
Frankel and Commissioner Wambua, was personally involved in the instant claims. Farid v. Ellen,
593 F.3d 233, 249 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 484 (2d Cir. 2006)). For
that matter, plaintiff fails to make any factual allegations against defendants Frankel or Wambua.
Therefore, even if plaintiff could proceed in federal court, any claims against defendants Frankel and
Wambua would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8).

3

Litigation History
The Court notes that of late plaintiff has inundated this Court with similar "complaints"
against a multitude of private and government parties:

Snezana v. Smith, 12 CV 2457 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v. Donovan,
12 CV 2458 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v. Queens Job Center, 12 CV
2460 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v. Executive Secretary, 12 CV 2461
(DLI) (RER); Snezana v. Ballantyne, 12 CV 2462 (DLI) (RER);
Snezana v. NYS HESC, 12 CV 2463 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v.
Commission NYS DOL, 12 CV 2465 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v. Con
Edison, 12 CV 2466 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v. DeAguiar, 12 CV
2467 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v. Commissioner NYC DOE, 12 CV
2468 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v. Doria, 12 CV 3217 (DLI) (RER);
Snezana v. Social Security, 12 CV 3225 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v. Con
Ed, 12 CV 3218 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 12
CV 3224 (DLI) (RER); Snezana v. Social Security Office of
Disability, 12 CV 3226 (DLI) (RER).
The Court will not tolerate abuse of its resources. Furthermore, "[t]he district courts have
the power and obligation to protect the public and the efficient administration of justice from
individuals who have a history oflitigation entailing vexation, harassment and needless expense to
other parties and an unnecessary burden on the courts and their supporting personnel." Lau v.

Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Moates v.
Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (district court may enjoin parties from filing
further lawsuits upon notice and an opportunity to be heard); see also Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d
!55, !58 (2d Cir. 2005); 28 U.S.C. § 165l(a).
Plaintiff should not file a complaint in federal court for every dispute or issue she may
encounter, unless there is a good faith basis for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the
matter. The Court reiterates that the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to
federal question and diversity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-32.

4

Furthermore, plaintiff is hereby warned that if she continues to file similar complaints, she
may be barred from filing any new civil action in this Court seeking in forma pauperis status without
first obtaining leave of the Court to do so.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the complaints, filed in forma pauperis, are dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The
Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken
in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

---

SO ORDERED.

~

__..,_
~~..t.__

-

Ju,u{'

William F. Kuntz, lit
United States Distric/_e

Dated: July 6 , 2012
Brooklyn, New York

5

.

L/"

___

--