Shepard v. Jacobs-Epps
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-04114
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Shepard v. Jacobs Epps, Judge Swain dismissed Shepard’s complaint for lacking federal jurisdiction but allowed him 30 days to amend.
Stephen C. Shepard’s complaint was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but he may file an amended complaint within 30 days. The ruling did not decide the merits of his allegations against Brenda Jacobs Epps.
What happened
In Shepard v. Jacobs Epps, Stephen C. Shepard sued Brenda Jacobs Epps without a lawyer. Shepard alleged that Jacobs Epps was preventing him from moving to Tennessee and sought to remove her from his accounts, insurance, power of attorney, Social Security, and pension matters.
The court found that the complaint did not provide facts supporting federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. It did not identify a federal claim, and both Shepard and Jacobs Epps were alleged to reside in New York.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but gave Shepard 30 days to file an amended complaint with facts showing federal jurisdiction. The court also denied him permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Shepard v. Jacobs-Epps · No. 1:24-cv-04114
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 26, 2024
Background
Stephen C. Shepard filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction. Shepard alleged that Brenda Jacobs Epps was “preventing me from moving to another state, Tennessee, if I kept her as a Power of Attorney.” He also asked that Jacobs Epps be removed from his bank and insurance accounts, power of attorney, Social Security, and pension matters. The complaint included part of a Chase Bank statement and emails from Arquelia Vega concerning a possible move and an alleged $250 debt.
Jurisdiction
Federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law or cases between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court held that Shepard’s complaint did not allege facts showing a federal-law claim. The court noted that a power of attorney is governed by state law. It also explained that, if Shepard intended to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he would need to allege both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under state authority; the complaint did not suggest that Jacobs Epps was a state actor.
The court also held that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction. Shepard stated that he resided in New York County and Jacobs Epps resided in Queens County. Because both were alleged to reside in New York, the complaint did not show that they were citizens of different states.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Because Shepard was representing himself, Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted him 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint providing additional facts that could show federal jurisdiction. The court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment if Shepard did not timely amend. 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.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.