Hobbs v. Livingston

Background

Richard P. Hobbs, appearing without a lawyer, filed a one-page handwritten complaint against Rev. Michael Livingston, Rev. James Forbes, and Richard Gregory. The court had previously allowed Hobbs to proceed without paying the filing fee. Hobbs alleged that he was a member of Riverside Church and a “part-owner” of its building. He further alleged that church officials who disliked him tried to ban him from the building and have him arrested because he was a convicted pedophile.

Hobbs described an incident from three years earlier. He alleged that a new minister used a “criminal scheme” to set him up, that church officials persuaded him to sign a document saying he would not go to the church’s third floor, and that a church security guard took him there when he was blind on Palm Sunday, resulting in his arrest for trespassing. Hobbs appeared to invoke diversity jurisdiction as to Forbes, but he requested unspecified relief.

Legal standard

The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without payment of fees if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or does not fall within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally, those complaints still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and must meet the basic requirement of stating why the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Jurisdiction analysis

The court considered federal-question and diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court found that Hobbs did not invoke federal-question jurisdiction and did not plead facts showing a federal claim.

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity—meaning that no plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state—and a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 is at issue. Hobbs identified himself as a New York resident and described Livingston as a New Jersey resident and Forbes as a resident of another state, but he did not plead facts establishing their citizenship. He provided no citizenship information for Gregory and did not identify the amount or type of relief sought. The court therefore found that Hobbs had not shown that diversity jurisdiction existed.

The court added that, even if diversity jurisdiction could be established, Hobbs had not identified a state-law cause of action, and the court could not discern one from the allegations.

Litigation history and warning

The court noted that Hobbs had filed several earlier cases in the Southern District of New York and had filed three other complaints on the same day as this case. Based on that history, the court warned that if Hobbs abused the privilege of proceeding without paying filing fees, it could require him to explain why he should not be barred from filing new fee-free cases without prior permission.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to give Hobbs an opportunity to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment and considered his litigation history relevant to that decision. Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.