Risby v. Hawley

Background

Jerome S. Risby, who was representing himself, applied to proceed without paying the filing fee, and the court granted that application. The court then screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Risby submitted a form complaint and a separate damages complaint, which the court treated together as the operative complaint.

Risby named Rebecca Hawley, the Rebecca Hawley Trust, and two trustees of other trusts. The complaint’s factual allegations concerned Hawley. Risby alleged that Hawley made false statements to police and in court proceedings, resulting in his arrest and eviction from a shared apartment.

Risby identified federal-question jurisdiction and cited 28 U.S.C. § 4101, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, 18 U.S.C. § 241, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The court noted that the complaint listed racketeering in the caption but contained no substantive allegations supporting that claim.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction. It concluded that the complaint did not appear to allege a viable federal claim that could support federal-question jurisdiction.

The court rejected reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 4101 because that provision defines defamation for purposes of recognizing or enforcing certain foreign defamation judgments; this case did not involve such a judgment.

The court treated Risby’s references to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 as one claim under § 1985(3). It explained that this claim requires allegations of a conspiracy, an effort to deny equal protection or equal privileges, an act advancing the conspiracy, and resulting injury or deprivation of a right. It also requires facts showing that a protected right was violated and that the conduct was motivated by class-based discriminatory animus. The court found these allegations missing. It also noted that the complaint identified Hawley as a private individual and did not identify improper conduct by a state actor.

The court explained that 18 U.S.C. § 241 is a federal criminal statute and does not allow a private individual to bring a civil action under it.

As to the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court stated that a malicious-prosecution claim requires, among other things, conduct by a state actor or someone acting under state authority and a prior prosecution that ended favorably for the plaintiff. The court found that Risby did not identify the prosecution involved, allege that it ended favorably, or otherwise allege a viable malicious-prosecution claim.

The court also found that Risby had not stated a civil racketeering claim. The complaint did not allege the elements of such a claim, including a pattern of racketeering activity causing injury to business or property.

Order

The court ordered Risby to show why the case should not be dismissed because he had asserted no viable federal claim and therefore had not established federal jurisdiction. It allowed him to file either an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or a response explaining why the current complaint was sufficient, by December 19, 2024.

The court vacated the January 8, 2025 case-management conference. It stated that if Risby did not respond by the deadline, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B). The order itself did not dismiss the case.