Carr v. Laconia Nursing Home

Background

Latrese Carr, who was incarcerated and litigating without a lawyer, sued Laconia Nursing Home and Manny Goldman, Shuley Brownstein, and Cynthia Moralez. The opinion describes Laconia as a private nursing home and rehabilitation facility in the Bronx and identifies Goldman and Brownstein as administrators and Moralez as a supervisor.

Carr alleged that, in December 2023, Moralez became verbally aggressive when he asked another nurse for a pass. He said Moralez threatened to contact his parole or probation officer, although he maintained that he was not on parole or probation. Carr alleged that people at the facility heard Moralez defame him. He further alleged that Moralez later contacted his lawyer’s secretary, started a rumor that he had HIV and hepatitis, and caused staff and residents to avoid him. Carr said he was moved between rooms, could not eat with other residents, and was forced to leave the facility. He alleged mental and emotional harm and sought money damages.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the screening rules for a person allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It explained that a complaint must contain enough facts to make a claim plausible and that the court must dismiss a case if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the dispute.

Carr invoked federal-question jurisdiction and diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The court concluded that the allegations did not suggest a viable federal claim. To the extent Carr intended to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he had to allege that each defendant acted under state authority. Because Laconia and its employees were described as private actors, and Carr did not allege that they worked for the government, the court concluded that he could not state a viable § 1983 claim against them.

The court also treated Carr’s allegations as possible state-law claims for defamation and slander. For diversity jurisdiction, Carr had to allege that he and every defendant were citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court found that he had not alleged the parties’ citizenships. It noted that he did not provide the individual defendants’ residential addresses, did not state where Laconia was incorporated, and did not allege enough facts establishing complete diversity.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), with 30 days’ leave to replead. It granted Carr permission to file an amended complaint alleging the required citizenship information and facts showing that his claims are worth at least $75,000. The court stated that, if Carr did not file an amended complaint within the allowed period, the Clerk of Court would be directed to enter judgment. Judge Louis L. Stanton directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.