Lacey v. Sure Shot Books Publishers LLC
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Lacey v. Sure Shot Books, Judge Swain dismissed Lacey’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction but allowed 30 days to replead.
John Jay Lacey may file an amended complaint within 30 days to attempt to establish federal jurisdiction. Sure Shot Books Publishers, LLC remains the defendant, and the order did not decide whether Lacey’s underlying allegations have merit.
What happened
In Lacey v. Sure Shot Books Publishers LLC, John Jay Lacey, representing himself, alleged that the company failed to deliver books, magazines, newspapers, and a catalog he ordered and paid for. He claimed violations of New York criminal statutes and sought $900 in damages.
The court said Lacey did not present a claim under federal law. It also found no basis for diversity jurisdiction because he did not allege the parties’ citizenship and sought less than the required $75,000 amount. The court explained that Lacey could not use this federal case to initiate a criminal prosecution, while noting that he was not barred from pursuing claims in an appropriate state court.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted Lacey 30 days to file an amended complaint showing that federal jurisdiction exists. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal and said judgment would be entered if Lacey did not amend on time.
The detailed version
- Lacey v. Sure Shot Books Publishers LLC · No. 1:24-cv-02406
- Laura Swain
- May 28, 2024
Background
John Jay Lacey, who was incarcerated at the Indiana State Reformatory and was representing himself, sued Sure Shot Books Publishers, LLC. The complaint alleged that Lacey placed orders for books and subscriptions to the Poughkeepsie Journal and Poets and Writers but did not receive all the materials. In November 2023, he ordered a 2024 Product Catalog and subscriptions to Billboard, the Poughkeepsie Journal, and the New York Post, sending $321.59. He alleged that only some newspaper issues arrived and that the other publications and catalog did not arrive. He sought $900 in compensatory damages and alleged petit larceny and attempted petit larceny under New York Penal Law.
Jurisdiction
The court examined whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. It found no federal-question jurisdiction because Lacey’s allegations about undelivered written materials did not arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.
The court also found no diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. Lacey did not provide facts about his citizenship, and his requested $900 in damages did not meet the required amount in controversy of more than $75,000. The court further explained that a private plaintiff cannot initiate or direct a criminal prosecution in federal court. The court stated that it took no position on the merits of any action Lacey might bring in state court.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Lacey 30 days to file an amended complaint showing that the court has jurisdiction. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. If Lacey did not amend within the allowed time, the court said the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.