Bryant v. Kinder et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close this case and to close all pending motions. SO ORDERED. (See Order.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/23/2014) (ajs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANNE BRYANT,
Plaintiff,

14 Cv. 6637(JGK)

- against -

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

CLIFFORD A. "FORD" KINDER ET AL. ,
Defendants.

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action
invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction, alleging
claims of unfair competition, business identity theft,
conversion,

common law fraud,

and fraudulent transfer.

On

October 3, 2014, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause
why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
WL 4958077

See Bryant v. Kinder, No. 14cv6637, 2014

(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2014).

On October 29,

2014, the

plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts that
28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides the Court with subject matter
jurisdiction.

The Court has an independent obligation to

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this
action.

See Gonzalez v. Thaler,

132 S. Ct.

641,

648

(2012).

The plaintiff's complaint does not identify a basis for
federal question jurisdiction under§ 1331.

1

To invoke federal

question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's claims must arise "under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
1331.

"[A] case can 'aris[e] under'

Most directly,

federal law in two ways.

a case arises under federal law when federal law

creates the cause of action asserted."
Ct. 1059, 1064

(2013).

Gunn v. Minton,

133 S.

Or "federal jurisdiction over a state

law claim will lie if a federal issue is:
raised,

§

(2) actually disputed,

(3)

(1)

necessarily

substantial, and

(4)

capable

of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federalstate balance approved by Congress."

Id. at 1065.

The Amended Complaint does not identify a federal law that
"creates the cause of action asserted."

The Amended Complaint

cites three sections in title 18 of the United States Code-18
U.S.C.

§§

1028, 1343, 2314, and 2315-that create federal crimes.

These sections make it a crime to commit identity theft, to
commit wire fraud,
stolen goods,

and to transport,

respectively.

and to sell or receive

None of these sections includes a

civil cause of action, and therefore do not provide this Court
with jurisdiction under
2012 WL 201847, at *l
§

§

1331.

See Ford v. Sims, No.12cv67,

(D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2012)

1343 does not provide a basis for

Novikova v. _I_R::;, No.
Sept. 28, 2007)
for

§

§

1331 jurisdiction);

04cv'.:d24, 2001 WL 2d9LllJl,

(holding that

§

(holding that

at'~

(1'.U.N.Y.

1028 does not provide a basis

1331 jurisdiction); Local 1 FLM-FJC v. Caputo,
2

No. 86cv3839,

1988 WL 13774, at *2

(holding that

§

2314 does not provide a basis for

jurisdiction); cf. Piorkowski v.
21037353, at *8

(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 1988)

Parziale, No.

(D. Conn. May 7, 2003)

§

1331

02cv963, 2003 WL

(holding that § 2315 does

not provide a private right of action)
The plaintiff's remaining claims arise entirely under state
law, and these claims do not necessarily raise a substantial and
disputed question of federal law.
CONCLUSION
The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

The Clerk is directed to close

this case and to close all pending motions.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
December 23, 2014
,
J' n G. Koeltl
\,
United States District Judge
/

3