Dunbar v. Johnson

Background

Janis L. Dunbar, appearing without a lawyer, filed the action under the federal-question jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants were identified as B.E.T. CEO Robert Johnson, N.A.A.C.P. Scott X. Esdaile, whom Dunbar described as the NAACP’s “Elected President,” and B.E.T. employee Michael Blackson. The court had previously allowed Dunbar to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Dunbar alleged that Curtis James Jackson, professionally known as 50 Cent, used her idea for a comedy show and that she had contacted Esdaile about the matter. She also alleged that Jackson’s girlfriend stalked her, that Blackson was “double dating” her stalkers, and that people called her “crazy.” She asserted claims for defamation and emotional and mental distress and requested $114,000,000 in damages.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or over disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Dunbar invoked federal-question jurisdiction, but the court found that nothing in the complaint suggested a viable claim under federal law.

The court also found that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction. Dunbar alleged that she resided in New Haven, Connecticut, but provided only employment addresses for the defendants and did not allege their residences or citizenship. In addition, she provided no facts explaining why her requested $114 million in damages was supported. The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Frivolousness and Leave to Amend

The court separately held that the complaint was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In this context, a frivolous claim may lack any arguable legal or factual basis. The court concluded that Dunbar’s allegations did not provide plausible factual support for a legal claim and characterized them as irrational. It found that Dunbar had pleaded no factual basis showing that the defendants violated her rights.

Although courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend when the complaint might state a valid claim, Judge Stanton found that Dunbar’s claims were frivolous and that amendment would be futile. The court therefore declined to grant leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint, filed without prepaying fees, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and as frivolous. It denied Dunbar’s “Notice of Motion to Submit into Evidence” as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.