Melville v. Jiha
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Melville v. Jiha, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied fee-free appeal status.
Keith Melville's complaint was dismissed; the named defendants were not required to litigate the claims in federal court. Melville was also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Melville v. Jiha, Keith Melville, representing himself, sued Commissioner Jacques Jiha and several New York City enforcement divisions over tickets, booting, towing, and impounding his vehicle. He sought $30,000 and claimed the case belonged in federal court based on differing citizenship.
The court found no facts showing a claim under federal law. It also found that Melville had not shown the required amount for diversity jurisdiction, which must exceed $75,000, so the court lacked authority to hear the case. The court declined to allow an amended complaint because the defects could not be fixed by amendment.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Melville permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Melville v. Jiha · No. 1:19-cv-11903
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
Keith Melville, a New Jersey resident proceeding without a lawyer, sued Commissioner Jacques Jiha; the Street Cleaning Division; the Red Light Camera Division; Traffic Enforcement from Tow Truck; and the Boothing Division. He relied on the court's jurisdiction over cases involving citizens of different states. His allegations concerned red-light, street-cleaning, and loading-zone tickets; a ticket issued on a snow day; booting; a payment plan; and towing or impounding. The complaint sought $30,000.
The court had previously allowed Melville to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under statutes requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The opinion states that the complaint's factual allegations included some illegible or unclear text.
Jurisdictional Analysis
Federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties, and over disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The court held that Melville's allegations did not establish a claim arising under federal law. Merely invoking federal jurisdiction was not enough. The court also held that Melville had not alleged that his claim met the $75,000 jurisdictional amount required for diversity jurisdiction. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court explained that a self-represented plaintiff ordinarily receives an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but no amendment is required when it would be futile. It declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured.
Prior Litigation and Warning
The opinion states that Melville had filed four earlier cases in the same court against a former New York State Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, and that those cases were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. The court had warned him that he could face an order restricting future fee-free filings without prior permission. On December 23, 2019, the court ordered him to explain why such a restriction should not be imposed. The opinion states that he filed this complaint on December 26, 2019.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the clerk to mail the order to Melville and record service on the docket. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.