Williams v. Darmin Bachu, Esq. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The actions are hereby consolidated and are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Although plaintiff paid the filing fee to commence these two actions, the Court certifi es 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 of each action. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and to close each case. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 9/19/2013. C/mailed by chambers to pro se plaintiff. (Forwarded for Judgment) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-against13 CV 4610 (ARR)
DARMIN BACHU ESQ. (PIM EQUITIES-RON BOROVINSKY, LYNNAE SAVAGE,
GILLIAN SHEPHERD and JOHN DOE and
JANE DOE 1-15 and All Agents, Contractors
13 CV 4611 (ARR)
-againstDARMIN BACHU ESQ. c/o PIM EQUITIES,
RON BOROVINSKY, Civil Court of New York
County of Kings - Brooklyn Housing Part,
Index #73405113, LYNNAE SAVAGE,
GILLIAN SHEPHERD, Herkimer Realties,
(JOHN CLARKE), Pelican Remodeling &
Maintenance (JOHN CLARKE), JOHN CLARKE,
Paredium Investment Group aka Epiphany Home
Savers, Nidani LLC, Decatur Properties (PATRICK
MULLIN), PATRUCK MULLIN, Moeberg & Associates,
Mullholland & Knapp - c/o LYNNAE SAVAGE,
LYNNAE SAVAGE, Wilson's LawFirm,
(ERNEST E. WILSON), McPershon Taylor LLP,
EMANI TAYLOR, EMANI TAYLOR, Cohn &
Roth - c/o Downey Savings & Loan F.A., Supreme
Court Kings County Index #4823/09, Ideal
Properties (RON BOROVINSKy), Pim Equities
(RON BOROVINSKY), and JOHN DOE and
JANE DOE 1-15 and All Agents, Contractors
SEP 2 4 2013
NOT FOR PUBBRanm-N OFFICE
IN CLERK'S OFFIC!::
DI~TR'CT COURT E~D.N.Y.
ROSS, United States District Judge:
On August 15,2013, plaintiff~ylvia Williams, appearing pro se, filed these two actions. She
paid the statutory filing fee for each action. The actions are hereby consolidated and are dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as set forth below.
Both actions arise from the sale of property located at 70 Herkimer Street, Brooklyn, New
York 11216 wherein plaintiff resides. Plaintiff has been served with an eviction notice and a
holdover petition filed in state cburt"under index number 73405/13. Plaintiff alleges that she has
filed several Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") liens against defendants which nullify the effect
of the state court action seeking her eviction. Plaintiff alleges that this court has jurisdiction based
on the United States Constitution, the federal criminal code, admiralty law, the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act, and the Bill of Lading Act. Plaintiff seeks dismissal of the state court action
seeking her eviction, transfer of the property and damages.
In reviewing plaintiffs complaints, the court is mindful that, "apro 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). Nevertheless, even
a pro se 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 fdrthe misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). However, 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 Sch. Dist., 514 F .3d 240, 250 (2d Cir. 2008). Furthermore, if the court determines that the
action is frivolous, the court may dismiss the cQmplaint sua sponte even if the plaintiff has paid the
; :, ~ i
filing fee. Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000)
The basic statutory grants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Section 1331 provides for "[fjederal-question" jurisdiction, § 1332 for
"[d]iversity of citizenship" jurisdiction. A plaiI1!tiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she
pleads a colorable claim "arising under" the Constitution or laws of the United States. She invokes
§ 1332 jurisdiction when he presents a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the
required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000.
Here, plaintiff does not allege diversity
jurisdiction, but rather relies on federal constitutional and statutory law.
However, plaintiffs challenge tohereyiction arises under state law and her remedy to
challenge this eviction lies in the state courts. See McMillan v. Dep't of Bldgs., No. 12 CV 318
(ENV), 2012 WL 1450407, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26,2012) (federal court lacks jurisdiction over
eviction proceedings); Oliver v. NY City Hous. Auth., No. 10 CV 3204 (ARR), 2011 WL 839110,
at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2011)(same);Southerlandv.N Y City Hous. Auth., No. 10 CV 5243 (SLT),
2011 WL 73387, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2011) (same); see also Kheyn v. City olN Y, Nos. 10 CV
3233 (SLT), 1O-CV-3234 (SLT), 2010 WL 3034652, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2,2010) (federal court
does not have jurisdiction to intervene in landlord-tenant relationship).
Plaintiff s reliance on federal constitutional and statutory law is misplaced. As the parties
in this action are private, that is, they are not'governmental actors or entities, the United States
:j" : 1: ': ! '
'I.' I ':') :
Constitution does not provide a remedy. SeeFlaggv. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass 'n, 396 F.3d 178, 186
(2d Cir. 2005) ("Because the United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private
For these reasons, even construing plaintiffs qomplaints liberally, the court finds that is lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over plaintift-:s claims, and therefore must dismiss the complaints.
Accordingly, these two actions are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Although plaintiff paid the filing fee to commence these two actions,
the court certifies pursuant to 28 V.S.C., §
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 of
each action. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter judgment and to close each case.
/S/ Allyne R. Ross
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 19, 2013
70 Herkimer Street
Brooklyn, NY 11216
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?