Dunbar v. Casey
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-01961
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Dunbar v. Casey, Judge Stanton dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and frivolous claims, and denied an evidence motion as moot.
Janis L. Dunbar’s action against Raashawn Casey, Lenard McKelvey, and Jessica Robin Moore was dismissed. Dunbar was denied leave to amend, her motion to submit evidence was denied as moot, and she received a warning that future frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new actions without prior permission.
What happened
In Dunbar v. Casey, Janis L. Dunbar, who was representing herself, sued three radio show hosts. She alleged that they repeatedly featured Curtis James Jackson, professionally known as 50 Cent, whom she described as her stalker, and sought millions of dollars in damages.
The court found that Dunbar did not show that her claims arose under federal law. She also did not provide enough information to establish that the parties were citizens of different states or that the amount in dispute met the required threshold. The court further found that her allegations did not present a plausible legal claim and were frivolous.
Judge Stanton dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and as frivolous, denied leave to amend, and denied Dunbar’s motion to submit evidence as moot. The court also warned that further frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new cases without prior permission.
The detailed version
- Dunbar v. Casey · No. 1:25-cv-01961
- Louis Stanton
- July 1, 2025
Background
Janis L. Dunbar filed the action without a lawyer against Raashawn Casey, Lenard McKelvey, and Jessica Robin Moore, whom the complaint identified as radio show hosts working in New York, New York. Dunbar invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that the defendants repeatedly featured Curtis James Jackson, professionally known as 50 Cent, whom she described as her stalker. She sought millions of dollars in damages, asserting that the defendants treated her as though she were nobody.
The court had previously allowed Dunbar to proceed without paying filing fees. After filing the complaint, she submitted additional motions and documents seeking an order requiring service, a trial, and permission to submit evidence.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The court explained that federal district courts have limited jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court held that merely invoking federal jurisdiction was not enough because Dunbar’s complaint did not identify facts supporting a viable federal-law claim.
The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Dunbar alleged that she lived in New Haven, Connecticut, but provided only the defendants’ employment addresses and did not allege their residences or citizenship. She also provided no facts explaining why she sought millions of dollars. The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Frivolousness and Failure to State a Plausible Claim
The court separately held that the complaint was frivolous under the statute governing cases filed without prepayment of fees. A frivolous claim may lack any arguable basis in law or fact. The court found that Dunbar’s allegations about Jackson stalking her and the defendants being liable for millions of dollars because they featured him on their radio show did not provide plausible factual support for a legal claim. It stated that the allegations appeared irrational and that Dunbar had pleaded no factual basis showing that the defendants violated her rights.
Leave to Amend
The court denied leave to amend. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend when the complaint might state a valid claim, the court concluded that Dunbar’s claims were frivolous and that amendment would be futile.
Other Rulings and Warning
The court noted that Dunbar had filed other complaints that had been dismissed as frivolous and that an earlier warning about a possible filing injunction remained in effect. It warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring her from filing new actions without paying filing fees unless she first obtained the court’s permission.
The court denied Dunbar’s “Motion to Submit into Evidence” as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment. The complaint was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and as frivolous.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.