Richardson v. Duane Reade Corporation

Background

Dewayne Richardson, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center and was representing himself, sued Duane Reade Corporation, manager Chris Oniel, and employee Lewis Ramon Casilla. Richardson alleged that on March 23, 2019, he entered a Duane Reade drugstore in Bronx County, New York, carrying shampoo he had purchased elsewhere. He alleged that Oniel and Casilla harassed him, that he left the store, and that Oniel then told police Richardson had robbed the store at knifepoint of more than $300 in shampoo. Richardson alleged that these statements caused him to remain jailed for a year and five months. He asserted claims labeled “slander,” “defamation,” and “perjury,” and sought $9.5 million in damages.

The court had previously allowed Richardson to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court explained that it was required to screen a complaint filed by a detained person proceeding without prepayment of fees and dismiss it if the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction or if the complaint otherwise failed to state a claim.

Jurisdiction

The court considered both possible bases for federal jurisdiction. First, Richardson did not invoke federal-question jurisdiction and did not assert a claim arising under federal law. The court declined to treat his allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because all defendants were private parties, not state or local government officials. The court also noted that Richardson could not initiate a criminal prosecution for perjury in federal court because prosecution decisions belong to prosecutors.

Second, the court determined that Richardson had not shown diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires the plaintiff and defendants to be citizens of different states, as well as a claim exceeding $75,000. Although Richardson sought $9.5 million, the complaint indicated that both he and the defendants resided in New York, which defeated complete diversity.

Disposition

The court declined to give Richardson an opportunity to amend because it found that amendment would be futile. It dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion separately noted that Richardson had a pending excessive-force claim against police officers in a different case, but those officers were not defendants in this action.