Evans v. Jones
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-06015
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Evans v. Jones, Judge Swain dismissed Ivan N. Evans’s negligence action for lack of federal jurisdiction, while allowing 60 days to replead.
Ivan N. Evans’s negligence action against Ethaniel Jones, the John Doe asset-protection associate, and Macy’s Department Store, Inc.; the dismissal may be addressed through an amended complaint filed within 60 days.
What happened
In Evans v. Jones, Ivan N. Evans, who was detained and representing himself, sued Ethaniel Jones, a John Doe asset-protection associate, and Macy’s Department Store, Inc. He alleged that he suffered an assault caused by negligent security and that his right forearm was broken, but provided no details about when or where it happened.
The court dismissed the action because negligence is generally a state-law claim, not a federal claim. Evans also did not provide enough facts to show that the parties were citizens of different states or that more than $75,000 was at stake. The court allowed him 60 days to file an amended complaint showing a basis for federal jurisdiction and providing more details about the defendants, events, injuries, and requested relief.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied Evans permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court directed the Clerk to keep the case open until a civil judgment is entered.
The detailed version
- Evans v. Jones · No. 1:24-cv-06015
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 13, 2025
Background
Ivan N. Evans, who was detained in Westchester County Jail and appeared without a lawyer, filed the action without paying the filing fee in advance. He sued Ethaniel Jones, a John Doe asset-protection associate, and Macy’s Department Store, Inc. His only stated allegation was that he suffered “an assault due to negligent security.” He did not identify when or where the incident occurred. He sought damages and stated that his right forearm was broken.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The court concluded that Evans’s negligence claim did not create federal-question jurisdiction because negligence is a state-law claim. The court also found that Evans had not alleged facts establishing diversity jurisdiction. He did not allege the parties’ citizenship, the states where the individual defendants were domiciled, or where Macy’s Department Store, Inc., was incorporated and had its principal place of business. He also did not allege facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Leave to Replead
The court granted Evans leave to file an amended complaint if he chose to continue in federal court rather than proceed in a state court of general jurisdiction. Any amended complaint must allege facts establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction and explain what each defendant did or failed to do, when and where the events occurred, the injuries Evans suffered, and the relief he seeks. The court also instructed him to provide the names and titles of relevant people.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, with 60 days’ leave to replead. If Evans does not file an amended complaint within the permitted time, the Clerk will be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied Evans permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.