Dante v. Ralphs Supermarket

Background

Raphael Dante filed a one-page complaint against Ralphs Supermarket while representing himself. He alleged that, as he approached a Ralphs grocery store, a security guard took out a baton, chased him after he tried to run away, struck him twice with the baton, and sprayed him with pepper spray. Dante sought $250,000 in damages and an apology from the security guard.

The court had previously allowed Dante to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was proceeding without a lawyer, the court was required to read his allegations liberally, but the complaint still had to provide enough facts to state a plausible claim under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court concluded that the complaint did not provide enough factual detail. Although the allegations appeared to suggest state-law assault and battery claims, Dante did not identify the date of the alleged incident or where it occurred. The complaint was captioned for the Los Angeles Superior Court, which also raised uncertainty about where the events took place.

The court further held that Dante had not shown a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. The allegations did not identify a claim arising under federal law, so they did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. The apparent assault and battery claims generally arose under state law.

Dante also did not establish diversity jurisdiction. He stated that he resided in New Jersey, but he did not allege Ralphs Supermarket’s citizenship. Although he requested $250,000, he did not provide facts describing his losses or explaining why Ralphs should be liable for that amount. The court therefore dismissed the complaint both for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Venue

The court also found that the proper venue—the federal district where the case may be heard—was unclear. Dante did not identify where the events occurred, where Ralphs Supermarket resided for venue purposes, or whether Ralphs was subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York. The court directed that any amended complaint address why that district is a proper venue.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted Dante 30 days’ leave to replead by filing an amended complaint. If he proceeds under diversity jurisdiction, the amended complaint must allege facts showing that he and Ralphs are citizens of different states and that the claims exceed $75,000. The court stated that, if Dante does not amend within the allowed period, it will enter judgment dismissing the action.

The court terminated all other pending matters, denied Dante permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.