Mimms v. Roth

Background

Reginald Mimms proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He sued four private attorneys under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of federal and state law and criminal activity. The complaint concerned legal matters arising from a 2015 collision in which a Greyhound bus struck Mimms’s car from behind. Mimms alleged serious injuries, extensive medical treatment, and problems involving the attorneys’ handling of the resulting litigation. His allegations included unauthorized actions, filings in incorrect jurisdictions, forged or fraudulent documents, withholding a $1.25 million settlement check and case files, and misleading statements about the status of the case. He sought more than $150 million.

The caption identifies the defendants as Ronald Roth, Nolan Roth, Dana Villasana, and Michael Laminoff. In the factual discussion, the opinion uses different names or spellings for two defendants; this summary follows the caption.

Federal Claims

The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without the filing fee. It explained that a complaint must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible and must state a legally available basis for relief.

The court dismissed the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because that statute requires the alleged constitutional or federal-rights violation to be committed by a person acting under state law. The court determined that the defendants were private parties and were not alleged to work for a state or other government body.

The court also ruled that Mimms could not initiate a federal criminal prosecution or require prosecutors to bring criminal charges. The court therefore concluded that he could not invoke federal-question jurisdiction through claims based on federal criminal statutes.

State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction

Mimms also asserted state-law claims, including abuse of process, breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, and legal malpractice. For diversity jurisdiction, a federal court generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000. Although Mimms alleged that the defendants maintained offices in New York State, he did not allege the defendants’ residences. The court therefore found that he had not pleaded facts showing complete diversity of citizenship.

The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims connected to federal claims; the court stated that it generally should decline that authority when the federal claims have dropped out at an early stage.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted Mimms 30 days to replead his state-law claims in an amended complaint alleging facts that would demonstrate diversity jurisdiction. If he did not file an amended complaint within that period, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.