Brown v. CUCS
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-06330
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Brown v. CUCS, Judge McMahon dismissed Brown’s action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it pleaded no federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
Dora I. Brown’s action against CUCS, WIFI RUSH-34, and DIRECT_F2_HP_OFFICE JET PRO 6970 was dismissed. The order also affected Brown’s ability to proceed without paying fees on an appeal and warned about possible restrictions on future fee-free filings.
What happened
In Brown v. CUCS, Dora I. Brown, representing herself, alleged that CUCS, WIFI RUSH-34, and DIRECT_F2_HP_OFFICE JET PRO 6970 interfered with her internet access and privacy. She sought money damages.
The court found that Brown’s complaint did not show that her claims arose under federal law. It also did not provide facts establishing that the parties were citizens of different states or that more than $75,000 was at issue.
Judge McMahon dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to allow an amended complaint. The court repeated a warning about possible limits on future filings without prior permission and denied fee-free status for any appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Brown v. CUCS · No. 1:19-cv-06330
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 1, 2019
Background
Dora I. Brown filed the action without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. She alleged that CUCS, WIFI RUSH-34, and DIRECT_F2_HP_OFFICE JET PRO 6970 interfered with her internet access and violated her privacy. Her allegations concerned a communal computer room, internet and hotspot services, printing services, her website name, and alleged interference with her laptop, iPhone, and iPad. She sought money damages.
Jurisdictional analysis
The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties, or over disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Brown’s complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction but did not plead facts showing that her claims arose under federal law. The court also found no facts suggesting diversity jurisdiction because the complaint did not establish that the parties were citizens of different states or allege the required amount in controversy.
The court stated that it generally gives a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but concluded that amendment would not cure the jurisdictional defects. It therefore declined to grant Brown leave to amend.
Disposition and warning
The court dismissed Brown’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It warned that further duplicative or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Brown from filing new actions without prior permission when seeking to proceed without paying filing fees. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.