Prince v. TD Bank et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), and for failure to state a claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment an d close the case. 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 7/28/2016. c/m tp pro se pltf (Fernandez, Erica)

FILED

u.a. otfhi~~~e~.'I Y

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------){

*

JUL 2 9 2Ul6

A~

DENISE MARIE PRINCE,

8ROoKLYN OFHCE

Plaintiff,
-against-

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
16-CV-1669 (CBA) (LB)

TD BANK; GREENPOINT SAVINGS BK;
LIBERTY MUTUAL; NORTHERN TR
COMPANY/BANKERS TR. CO.; and JOHN
HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY/NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.,
Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------){
AMON, United States District Judge:

Prose plaintiff Denise Marie Prince filed the above-captioned complaint on April 4, 2016.
Prince's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted solely for
the purpose of this Order. For the reasons that follow, the complaint is dismissed.

BACKGROUND
Prince's complaint consists of handwritten answers on a form "Complaint for a Civil
Case." (D.E. # 1 ("Compl.").) In the section describing the basis for federal court jurisdiction,
Prince writes "Citibk/ Banks Chase/ Queens PO" and lists mailing addresses in Columbia, South
Carolina, and in Brooklyn, New York. (Id. at 4.) In the section describing her claims, Prince
writes: "In 1988 I Denise Marie Prince was a computer op. for Bankers Tr Co. Dr. DooDoo made
my whole right side coloslape [sic]," and includes an address and telephone number. (Id. at 5.)
Her demand for relief states: "Liberty Mutual Co, 5015 Campuswood/ PO Bo:x: 4836/ Syracuse
NY - Long term disability payments from Liberty Mutual Ins. My non ta:x:able bond that I brought
from Dimes Bk 9 [illegible] Brooklyn- Washington Mutual I which now is Chase branch others
because I worked for them did not [illegible] it." (Id. at 6.)

1

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When considering a request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court conducts an initial
review of the pleadings and must dismiss the case ifit determines that the allegations are frivolous
or fail to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must state a claim
that is "plausible on its face" by alleging sufficient facts to enable "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). In evaluating the sufficiency of the pleadings, the Court must accept as true all factual
allegations and draw all inferences in the plaintiffs favor. See Larkin v. Savage, 318 F.3d 138,
139 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Although a pro se complaint must contain sufficient factual
allegations to meet the plausibility standard, it is held to less stringent standards than pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The Court is obliged to construe
the pleadings liberally and interpret them as raising the strongest arguments they suggest. Abbas
v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, even pro se pleadings must present
sufficient allegations to put the defendant on notice of "what the ... claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

DISCUSSION
Before deciding any case, a court must assure itself that the case is properly within its
subject matter jurisdiction. Wynn v. AC Rochester, 273 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir. 2001). If the court
determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the action may be dismissed sua sponte.
Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 700--01 (2d Cir. 2000). Federal
subject matter jurisdiction is available only when a federal question is presented or when plaintiff
and defendants have complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

2

Prince's complaint fails to invoke either the Court's federal question or diversity
jurisdiction. Prince asserts no basis for federal question jurisdiction and her complaint lacks
complete diversity, because both she and some of the defendants reside in New York. The Court
must, therefore, dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3), and for failure to state a claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter judgment and close the case.

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

, 2016
Dated: July $
Brooklyn, New York

s/Carol Bagley Amon
· trict Judge

3