Mehmeti v. Wotorson

Background

Subi X. Mehmeti, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Ambrose Water Wotorson and Stewart Lee Karlin. The defendants had represented Mehmeti in an earlier lawsuit against Jofaz Transportation, Inc. concerning the termination of his employment and claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

That earlier case ended when the district court granted Jofaz summary judgment, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Mehmeti later filed additional actions and appeals related to that termination. In this case, he alleged that Wotorson and Karlin caused documents to disappear from the earlier case file, including records concerning an eligible employee, an employer, a serious health condition, and issues for relief under federal law. He described the alleged conduct as criminal and asked the court to investigate and try the alleged crimes.

Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal district courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction exists when a claim arises under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

The court held that Mehmeti's references to the Family and Medical Leave Act did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. The complaint did not allege that Wotorson or Karlin violated that Act, and Mehmeti did not seek recovery under it. Instead, the claims concerned the attorneys' alleged disappearance of documents and criminal activity during their representation of him. The court concluded that those claims did not arise under federal law or the Constitution.

The court also held that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable. Mehmeti alleged that he and both defendants were citizens of New York, so complete diversity was absent.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court stated that a self-represented plaintiff is generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. Here, the court found amendment futile because all parties were alleged to be New York citizens, leaving no defendant against whom Mehmeti could proceed on a diversity theory. The court also found it futile to replead claims that the defendants committed crimes because a private citizen generally has no legally recognized interest in having another person prosecuted.

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case, and declined to grant leave to amend. The court further 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.