Grant v. Steele

Background

Maxine R. Grant, representing herself, sued Michael E. Steele, identified as her estranged husband. She asserted claims under city and state law, including battery and sexual battery, aggravated harassment in the second degree, forgery, issuing a false financial statement, and violations of New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Act. Grant alleged that Steele subjected her to verbal, physical, psychological, economic, and sexual abuse during their marriage. She sought compensatory, injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.

The court had previously allowed Grant to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Because she was proceeding without prepayment of fees, the court reviewed the complaint under the statute governing such cases. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

Jurisdiction

The court concluded that Grant had not established federal-question jurisdiction. Her complaint asserted only city- and state-law claims, and the alleged facts did not suggest a federal claim.

The court also concluded that Grant had not established diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the plaintiff and defendant to be citizens of different states and the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000. Grant alleged that she and Steele both reside in New York, which the court found precluded diversity jurisdiction.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court explained that self-represented plaintiffs are generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment and declined to allow Grant to file a third amended complaint.

Judge Kimba M. Wood dismissed Grant’s second amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the case. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Grant permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.