Kenyatta v. Dayris Jimenez Also Known As Finechina.FC
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01988
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kenyatta v. Jimenez, Judge Vyskocil ordered a second amended complaint after questioning jurisdiction and warned that cyberstalking law provides no private lawsuit.
Charles Kenyatta, who must file a second amended complaint addressing jurisdiction and a plausible federal claim, and Dayris Jimenez Also Known As Finechina.FC, who remains the defendant in the case.
What happened
Charles Kenyatta v. Dayris Jimenez involves a self-represented plaintiff’s state-law claims based on alleged social-media postings, including defamation, invasion of privacy, harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court questioned whether it had authority to hear the case because the complaint did not properly allege the parties’ citizenship. Kenyatta then said both parties were New York citizens and identified federal claims under the Lanham Act and a federal cyberstalking law.
The court ordered Kenyatta to file a second amended complaint by November 25, 2025, and warned that the cyberstalking law does not allow a private lawsuit. Judge Vyskocil also warned that failure to plead a plausible federal claim could lead to dismissal.
The detailed version
- Kenyatta v. Dayris Jimenez Also Known As Finechina.FC · No. 1:25-cv-01988
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 23, 2025
Background
Charles Kenyatta, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint against Dayris Jimenez Also Known As Finechina.FC. He asserted state-law claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The amended complaint alleged that Jimenez used social-media postings to disclose private communications without consent, make false or misleading claims about Kenyatta and his wife, and encourage harassment, bullying, and public ridicule.
The amended complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, stating that the parties lived in different states and that the claimed damages exceeded $1,000,000. The court issued an order requiring Kenyatta to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because he had not alleged the state in which each party was a citizen.
Jurisdiction Response
Kenyatta responded that both he and Jimenez were citizens of New York and that the reference to diversity jurisdiction was inadvertent. He instead asserted federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, stating that his claims arose under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, which he described as covering interstate harassment and cyberstalking.
Order
The court ordered Kenyatta to file a second amended complaint by November 25, 2025. It stated that he must plausibly allege facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court specifically warned that 18 U.S.C. § 2261A does not provide a private right of action, meaning an individual cannot sue under that statute based on the alleged violation. The court also stated that any federal claim, including a possible Lanham Act claim, must contain enough factual matter to be plausible on its face.
The order warned that failure to plausibly allege a federal claim may lead the court to dismiss the second amended complaint on its own. It also warned that failure to comply with the order, court rules, federal civil-procedure rules, or discovery obligations may result in sanctions, dismissal, or limits on claims, defenses, arguments, or evidence. The court did not decide the merits of Kenyatta’s allegations. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued and signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.