Quintell v. Tomko

Background

Randi Quintell filed a form complaint against Daniel Tomko and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application and then reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires screening of claims filed by people allowed to proceed without paying fees. Quintell represented herself.

The complaint listed two addresses for Tomko and described him as a citizen of “California/Pennsylvania” and “All foreign/galactic.” Quintell checked the box for federal-question jurisdiction. Her statement of claim referred to “All Entiritys” and property and assets, and attachments appeared to relate to alleged theft of her property and belongings. The attachments also suggested a dispute involving the inheritance of a home in San Leandro, California, and Quintell’s alleged ownership of that home and the personal property inside it.

Jurisdiction and Pleading Deficiencies

The court explained that federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction generally requires a claim arising under federal law, while diversity jurisdiction requires all plaintiffs to be citizens of different states from all defendants and more than $75,000 in controversy.

The court found that Quintell had not identified a violation of a federal statute or the United States Constitution. It also said that diversity jurisdiction did not appear available because Quintell and Tomko both appeared to reside in California. In addition, because the complaint did not clearly state the relevant facts, the court could not determine whether it plausibly stated a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege a legally sufficient claim for relief.

Order

The court ordered Quintell to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, Quintell could file either an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or a response explaining why the existing complaint was sufficient, by February 8, 2023.

The order stated that if Quintell did not respond by that date, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B). It also vacated the March 31, 2023 case-management conference and instructed that any amended complaint include all intended facts, claims, and defendants rather than incorporating the original complaint by reference.