Lee v. Hicks

Background

Abraham Sigurd Lee filed a complaint against Misty Hicks and the other named defendants. He alleged that the defendants accessed his bank account and Social Security and veterans benefits without his consent, defamed him, and engaged in broad criminal activity. The complaint did not identify specific causes of action. Lee also applied to proceed without prepaying filing fees or costs.

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung screened the complaint and recommended dismissal because it did not provide enough facts to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. The recommendation stated that Lee had not plausibly alleged either a federal cause of action or diversity of citizenship between Lee and every defendant. It also noted that Lee had not alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Lee objected to the recommendation and filed motions concerning jurisdiction and immediate relief.

Court’s Analysis

The district court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Lee objected. Because Lee was representing himself, the court read his filings liberally, but it still required factual allegations showing a plausible basis for relief and jurisdiction.

Lee relied on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court explained that those amendments do not themselves provide a private right of action and that Lee had not plausibly alleged that the defendants were state actors or that the challenged conduct involved state action. The court therefore found no plausible basis for original federal-question jurisdiction.

The court also considered diversity jurisdiction. Lee had represented that he was a Minnesota resident, and he alleged in another filing that several defendants were Minnesota citizens. The court therefore could not reasonably infer that Lee was diverse in citizenship from every defendant. Lee also had not alleged the required amount in controversy.

Rulings

The court overruled Lee’s objection and accepted the Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The court denied Lee’s Amended Motion to Establish Jurisdiction, his Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and his Motion to Establish Jurisdiction and Grant Immediate Relief. It denied as moot his Motion to Grant Relief and to be Appointed Civil Public Defender. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.