Brennen v. Griffin

Background

Mark Brennen and Christina Brennen, representing themselves, filed a complaint and other submissions seeking to stay an eviction. The court had previously allowed them to proceed without paying the filing fee. They alleged that Mark accidentally shot himself in the leg with a gun, that police arrested both plaintiffs for illegally possessing a weapon, and that Christina’s charges were dismissed and sealed. Mark was released on bail, but the opinion says the status of his charges was unclear.

The plaintiffs alleged that Desmarie Griffin, their landlord, later moved to evict them. Griffin initially said Christina could remain if Mark stayed away, but apparently withdrew that offer. The plaintiffs also referred to Christina’s health issues and her lack of knowledge about Mark’s gun. The court had previously denied their request for an order to show cause because their submissions did not show that the court had subject matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over federal-law claims or over disputes between citizens of different states involving more than $75,000. The plaintiffs’ allegations against their private landlord did not appear to involve federal law or require resolution of a substantial federal question. The court therefore dismissed any claims asserted under federal-question jurisdiction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court also found that the complaint did not specifically allege the plaintiffs’ or Griffin’s citizenship. Although the plaintiffs alleged that all parties resided in New York, the court said the complaint did not show complete diversity of citizenship. The plaintiffs also did not provide facts showing that their claims exceeded $75,000. The court therefore dismissed any state-law claims asserted under diversity jurisdiction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in the early stage of the case. The court stated that it could consider state-law claims if the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint stating a federal claim and supporting the state-law claims with facts.

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. Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves, the court allowed them an opportunity to amend and detail their claims. If they did not file an amended complaint within the allotted time, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.