Minichino v. La Rosa

Background

Marie Minichino, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Leo La Rosa and other defendants. The court granted her application to proceed without paying the filing fee and reviewed whether the complaint was legally sufficient under a federal statute governing such cases.

The court then ordered Minichino to show why her complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the dispute. Her response was due August 22, 2024. No response was filed. The mailed order was returned with an indication that Minichino no longer lived at the address she had provided. The Clerk also sent the order by email and spoke with Minichino by telephone; she indicated that she would file an amended complaint before the deadline but did not do so.

Recommendation and procedure

The magistrate judge recommended that Minichino’s complaint be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The recommendation stated that Minichino would have no leave to amend in this Court, but that the dismissal would be without prejudice to any claim Minichino might bring in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Because not all parties had appeared and consented to a magistrate judge’s authority to conduct all proceedings, the case was to be reassigned to a district judge for further proceedings, including action on the recommendation. Minichino could object to the recommendation by September 16, 2024. The opinion does not state the underlying reasons for the jurisdictional problem; it refers to the earlier order to show cause.