Kastner v. Tri State Eye
- Louis Stanton
- 7:19-cv-10668
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Kastner v. Tri State Eye, Judge Stanton ordered Joseph Kastner to explain within 30 days why his case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Joseph Kastner was required to respond within 30 days; Tri State Eye and the other defendants faced possible dismissal of the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
In Kastner v. Tri State Eye, Joseph Kastner filed a second amended complaint about an injury during eye surgery in 2018. The court had previously given him opportunities to revise his complaint.
The court found that the second amended complaint did not show that state officials caused the injury or that Kastner was in state custody when it occurred. It also did not establish that the parties were citizens of different states, because Kastner said he and the defendants resided in New York.
Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered Kastner to explain within 30 days why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court said it would dismiss the action without prejudice if he failed to respond or show good cause, and it denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Kastner v. Tri State Eye · No. 7:19-cv-10668
- Louis Stanton
- June 10, 2020
Background
Joseph Kastner proceeded without a lawyer and filed a second amended complaint after the court previously gave him two opportunities to revise his pleading to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court understood the complaint to concern an injury during eye surgery in 2018.
In an earlier amended complaint, Kastner suggested that he might have been in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision when the injury occurred. The court therefore allowed him to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain claims against state actors. In the second amended complaint, however, he did not allege facts showing that he was in state custody or that state actors caused his injury.
Jurisdictional analysis
The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction based on either a federal question or diversity of citizenship. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court concluded that merely invoking federal jurisdiction, without facts supporting a federal-law claim, is insufficient.
Diversity jurisdiction requires the plaintiff and defendants to be citizens of different states and requires an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court stated that Kastner alleged that both he and the defendants resided in New York, which prevented complete diversity based on the allegations before the court.
Order
The court did not enter a final dismissal in this order. Instead, Judge Louis L. Stanton directed Kastner to show cause within 30 days why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that if Kastner failed to comply or failed to show good cause, it would dismiss the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The opinion does not state that the case was ultimately dismissed after the show-cause period.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.