People Of The State Of New York et al v. Bey

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The action removed by plaintiff from the Village Court of the Village of Rockville Centre is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly to remand th is action to the Village Court for the Village of Rockville Centre, and to close the case for administrative purposes. 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 purpose of an appeal. SO ORDERED by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano, on 5/30/2014. C/mailed. (Forwarded for Judgment.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF
ROCKVILLE CENTRE; VILLAGE COURT
OF THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF
ROCKVILLE CENTRE; VILLAGE JUSTICE :
OF THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF
ROCKVILLE CENTRE; POLICE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INCORPORATED
VILLAGE OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE;
COMMISSIONER CHARLES GENARRIO
RVCPD, POLICEMAN XXX QUIGLEY
BADGE # 434; ALL COUNTY HOOK UP
TOWING, INC.; DOES 1 TO 15,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-cv-2278 (ENV) (MDG)

Plaintiffs,
-againstMINISTER RA MAA NU AMEN BEY, A
Natural Person, In propria persona, Sui Juris,
Authorized Representative, BILV Holding, Ra
Maa Nu Amen, Trustee, not to be confused with :
nor substituted with Pro Se and not a Statutory :
Person, Authorized Representative, Ex. Rel.
Minister Ra Maa Amen Bey
Defendant.

--------------------------------------------------------------x
VITALIANO, D.J.,
Defendant Minister Ra Maa Nu Amen Bey ("Bey") 1, proceeding prose, filed
this notice of removal on April 9, 2014 seeking to challenge in federal court a
parking ticket currently pending in the Village Court for the Village of Rockville
Bey is no stranger to this Court, having filed numerous frivolous actions over the
years under a variety of different pseudonyms.

1

.

.

'

Centre. Bey has paid the filing fee to initiate this action. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and, sua sponte,
dismisses the action and remands the case to the state court of original filing.
Discussion
The Court is mindful that the submissions of a prose litigant must be
construed liberally and interpreted "to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest." Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006).
Even a prose plaintiff, however, must establish that the court of filing has subject
matter jurisdiction over the action. See, e.g., Rene v. Citibank N.A., 32 F. Supp. 2d
539, 541-42 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (dismissing prose complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction).
The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited. Federal
jurisdiction is available, generally, only when a "federal question" is presented, 28
U.S.C. § 1331, or when the plaintiff and defendant are of diverse citizenship and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. "[S]ubject-matter
jurisdiction, because it involves the court's power to hear a case, can never be
forfeited or waived." United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). Courts "have
an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists,
even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. 546
U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583
(1999). "Where jurisdiction is lacking ... dismissal is mandatory." Manway

Constr. Co. Inc. v. Housing Auth. of City of Hartford, 711 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir.

2

1983); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Moreover, even if subject matter jurisdiction exists and regardless of
whether a plaintiff has paid the filing fee, a district court may dismiss the case, on its
own motion, if it determines that the action is frivolous. Fitzgerald v. First East

Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221F.3d362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000). An action is
frivolous as a matter of law when, inter alia, it is "based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory"- that is, when it "lacks an arguable basis in law ... , or [when] a
dispositive defense clearly exists on the face of the complaint." Livingston v.

Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 473 (2d Cir. 1998).
Here, the State of New York has issued Bey a parking ticket, which, under the
state's police power, orders him to either pay a fine or to appear in Village Court in
the Village of Rockville Centre. (Notice of Removal at 40.) Bey asserts that this
Court has jurisdiction to hear his challenge to that ticket based on the following
"federal questions": "Constitution Treaty, Religious Liberty, Due Process: NonCommercial Activity; No Transportation Activity; Rights of Travel, etc. Supreme
Courts Rulings." (Notice of Removal at 6.) Assuming for argument sake only that a
federal court could somehow exercise jurisdiction over what is plainly a state court
parking ticket dispute, this sort of bald assertion of constitutional and federal
statutory rights is insufficient to invoke the Court's jurisdiction. See City of Rome v.

Verizon Commc'ns Inc., 362 F.3d 168, 174 (2d Cir. 2004) ("The mere existence or
invocation of a federal defense does not furnish a sufficient basis for jurisdiction to
attach.") Put another way, the complaint raises issues that are within the
jurisdiction of state courts, not this one.
3

'>

•

Conclusion
The action removed by plaintiff from the Village Court of the Village of
Rockville Centre is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly to remand this
action to the Village Court for the Village of Rockville Centre, and to close the case
for administrative purposes.
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 purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45
(1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
May 30, 2014

/S/ Judge Eric N. Vitaliano
ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Judge

4