Siomkos v. Nouinou

Background

The plaintiff appeared without a lawyer and was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. She alleged that she met Fatima Zohra Nouinou in June 2023 and loaned her $2,150 after Fatima said she needed the money for fees connected with becoming employed as a police officer. According to the complaint, Fatima did not repay the loan and later claimed that the plaintiff owed her money for coaching work.

The plaintiff further alleged that Fatima sent negative and false letters about her to her condominium board, real estate group, and others; that Fatima and Daniel Emir Nouinou filed multiple baseless motions and lawsuits against her; and that Fatima threatened her physical safety. The plaintiff asserted rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, referred generally to federal statutes, and sought a permanent protective order, $50,000 from each defendant, criminal and immigration-status investigations, and sealing of the complaint.

Request to Seal

The court denied the request to seal the complaint. It explained that a complaint is a court document to which the public generally has a presumptive right of access. The plaintiff had not filed a separate sealing motion, the complaint had been opened on the docket without restrictions, and her stated concern about tampering or unauthorized access did not provide a sufficient basis for sealing it.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court considered both federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The court held that the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. A federal constitutional claim generally must involve government action or a person acting under state authority. Because the defendants were private parties and the plaintiff did not allege that they acted under state authority, she could not state a Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against them on the allegations presented. The plaintiff also referred generally to “elder abuse under federal statutes,” but the court found no clearly identified federal law supporting that theory.

The court also held that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff alleged that all parties were domiciled in New York. The court therefore found that the allegations did not show the parties had the different citizenship required for diversity jurisdiction. The court did not reach the underlying loan, harassment, fraud, or other factual disputes.

Leave to Replead

Because it was unclear whether the plaintiff could amend the complaint to allege facts establishing federal jurisdiction, the court granted her 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. The court directed that any amended complaint must include facts showing either that the claims arise under federal law or that the parties have diverse citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If no amended complaint is filed within the permitted time, the Clerk will be directed to enter judgment.

Request for Volunteer Counsel and Disposition

The court denied the plaintiff’s application for the court to request volunteer counsel because it concluded that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that the action could therefore be pursued only in state court. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), granted 30 days’ leave to amend, denied the request to seal, and denied the application for court-requested volunteer counsel. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.