Dunbar v. ABC World News Network

Background

Janis L. Dunbar appeared without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The court had granted that request. She sued ABC World News Network; Robin Roberts; Michael Strahan; and Caryn Elaine Johnson.

Dunbar alleged that she sent the defendants a 10-page letter in 2019 concerning Curtis James Jackson, also known professionally as 50 Cent, and later sent a flyer about her book. She claimed the defendants failed to respond or investigate. She described her claim as “defamation of character” and alleged that she had been placed on psychiatric holds three times after being called “crazy.”

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a complaint filed without prepayment of fees must be dismissed if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or otherwise falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that it must read filings by people without lawyers generously, while still requiring them to provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.

The court first concluded that Dunbar had not established federal-question jurisdiction. Although she invoked federal-question jurisdiction, she did not identify a federal statute or other federal basis for her claims. Her allegations concerned news organizations’ alleged failure to pursue information she provided, and the court found that those facts did not suggest a federal claim.

The court also found that Dunbar had not established diversity jurisdiction. She provided an address for herself and business addresses for the defendants, but did not allege where the individual defendants were domiciled. The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires citizenship in different states and a claim exceeding $75,000.

Ordinarily, the court said, a self-represented plaintiff may receive an opportunity to amend jurisdictional allegations. Here, however, the court found amendment would be futile because Dunbar’s allegations did not state a plausible claim for relief. In particular, the complaint did not plausibly suggest that any defendant had a legal duty to respond to her letter or take action based on it. The court therefore also characterized the action as frivolous.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and as frivolous. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order restricting Dunbar from filing new actions without paying fees unless she first obtained the court’s permission.