Quintell v. Tomko

Background

Randi Quintell filed a form complaint against Daniel Tomko and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had granted that application. Quintell described Tomko as a citizen of “California/Pennsylvania” and “All foreign/galactic,” checked the box for federal-question jurisdiction, and referred to attachments concerning property and belongings that she claimed had been stolen. The attachments appeared to relate to an inheritance dispute involving a home in San Leandro, California, and Quintell’s alleged ownership of that home and the personal property in it.

Court’s analysis

Because Quintell was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also discussed the requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) that a complaint provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The court first questioned subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court’s authority to hear the case. Quintell claimed federal-question jurisdiction but did not identify a violation of a federal statute or the United States Constitution. The court also stated that diversity jurisdiction did not appear available because Quintell and Tomko appeared to reside in California, and diversity jurisdiction requires the parties to be citizens of different states and more than $75,000 to be in dispute.

The court also found that Quintell had not provided a short and plain statement of her claim. It stated that the complaint did not contain a clear statement of facts and did not allow the court to determine the legal basis of the claims or the relief requested. Because Quintell was representing herself, the court noted that her pleadings must be read liberally and that she ordinarily should be given an opportunity to amend unless the defects could not be cured.

Order

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, the court ordered Quintell to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Quintell could respond by filing either an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or a response explaining why the existing complaint was sufficient. The response or amended complaint was due February 8, 2023. The court vacated the March 31, 2023 case-management conference and stated that, if Quintell did not respond by the deadline, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B).