Salma v. NASA Department Headquarter
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-05748
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Salma v. NASA Department Headquarter, Judge Stanton dismissed the action because the complaint did not establish federal court jurisdiction.
Ummey Salma’s action against the named defendants was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the court declined to allow an amended complaint.
What happened
In Ummey Salma v. NASA Department Headquarter, et al., Salma sued several named entities and proceeded without paying filing fees. The complaint referred to events involving subjects including NASA, vehicles, ozone, and Antarctica, but did not identify the defendants’ addresses or whether they were federal, state, or local entities.
Salma invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The court found no facts showing a claim based on federal law or the Constitution, and no facts showing that the parties were citizens of different states or that more than $75,000 was at stake. Salma did not request money damages.
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to allow an amended complaint because the defects could not be cured. Judge Louis L. Stanton issued the order.
The detailed version
- Salma v. NASA Department Headquarter · No. 1:20-cv-05748
- Louis Stanton
- Aug. 31, 2020
Background
Ummey Salma, appearing without a lawyer, filed an action against Auto Vehicle Department Headquarter, Drug Enforcement Department, Health Department Headquarter, NASA Department Headquarter, Natural Resources Department, and Production Department Headquarter. Salma invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court had previously allowed Salma to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
The complaint stated that the events occurred between 2017 and 2018 at a location described as “completely satellite & tracking source.” It included statements about connections between Earth and the solar system, vehicle motors, ozone theory, Antarctica, fish, and possible merchandising and exporting. The complaint did not provide addresses for the defendants or identify whether they were federal, state, or municipal entities. Salma did not seek money damages.
Court’s Analysis
A federal district court has limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning it may hear only the types of cases authorized by federal law. The court considered both federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The court concluded that the complaint did not present a federal question because it did not involve a federal or constitutional right. Merely invoking federal jurisdiction, without facts showing a claim arising under federal law, was insufficient.
The court also found that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction. Salma did not allege that Salma and the defendants were citizens of different states, and did not allege that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court declined to grant leave to amend because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered the dismissal on August 31, 2020.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.