Davison v. State Administration Proceeding et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER [DISMISSING CASE]: Plaintiff's 1 request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted, and his 2 Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subjec t matter jurisdiction. 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 LaShann DeArcy Hall, on February 1, 2017. C/mailed. (Forwarded for Judgment.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

FILED

IN CLERK'S OFFICE
US DISTRICT COUHT E. D N Y

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------x.

*

FEB 0 1 2017

NOT FOR PU~'N'J

OFFICE

CLYDE DAVISON, JR.,

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
16-CV-6594 (LDH) (LB)

-against-

*

STATE ADMINISTRATION PROCEEDING
ESTATE OF VIRGINIA JONE; KRISTA ROBERTS;
PAUL ROBERT,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------x.

LASHANN DEARCY HALL, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Clyde Davison, Jr. brings this pro se action seeking to have this Court
investigate a homicide. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 is granted, and his complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action against the estate of Virginia Jones and against Ms. Jones' s

relatives and beneficiaries to her estate. (Compl., ECF. No. 2.) Although unclear, Plaintiff
believes that he is entitled to a share of Virginia Jones's estate because he allegedly took care of
her while he was a tenant in her home. (Id) On October 30, 2015, Virginia Jones died while she
was a patient at the Cobble Hill Nursing Home, located in Brooklyn. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that
Ms. Jones's death was a homicide and seeks to have this Court investigate her death. (Id.) It is
unclear what further relief he seeks.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The District Courts of the United States are "courts of limited jurisdiction" and may not
preside over cases absent subject matter jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,

Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Congress has granted

district courts original jurisdiction over cases in which there is a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. §
13 31, and certain cases between citizens of different states, so long as the requirements of
complete diversity and amount in controversy are met, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332." Perdue Pharma

L.P. v. KentuckyL 704 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2013). "[B]ecause [subject matter jurisdiction]
involves a court's power to hear a case, [it] can never be forfeited or waived." United States v.

Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). "[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546
U.S. 500, 514 (2006).
Plaintiffs complaint fails to present a substantial federal question. Section 1331 gives
the court "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Bracey v. Bd ofEduc. ofCity ofBridgeport, 368 F.3d
108, 113 (2d Cir. 2004). A case arises under federal law where federal law creates the plaintiffs
cause of action or where ''the well-pleaded complaint 'necessarily depends on resolution of a
substantial question of federal law."' Id. (quoting Franchise Tax Bd v. Constr. Laborers

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 28 (1983)). Even when construed liberally, it does not appear that
Plaintiffs claims are premised on a violation of any federal constitutional or statutory right.
Furthermore, diversity of citizenship is lacking as both Plaintiff and Defendants reside in New
York.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Clerk of Court is directed to
enter judgment. 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).
Dated: Brooklyn, Ne.wYork
February 1, 2017 .

. SO ORDERED:
/s/LDH
LASHANN DEARCY HALL
United States District Judge