Smith v. Harris
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-00571
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Smith v. Harris, Judge Engelmayer gave Ahtwana Marie Smith 60 days to amend because her complaint did not establish federal-court jurisdiction.
Ahtwana Marie Smith and the defendants named in her complaint, including Yandy Smith Harris and the other listed defendants.
What happened
In Ahtwana Marie Smith v. Yandy Smith Harris, Smith, representing herself, said the case belonged in federal court because the parties were citizens of different states. She identified herself as a New York citizen but did not provide the defendants’ citizenships, and the complaint did not show a federal-law claim.
The court allowed Smith to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The new complaint must explain the basis for federal jurisdiction, describe the facts and claims against each defendant, provide relevant dates and locations, identify injuries and requested relief, and include addresses for the defendants. It will replace the original complaint rather than add to it.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered that no summons issue yet and stated that the case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if Smith does not timely amend without showing good cause. He also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Harris · No. 1:21-cv-00571
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 26, 2021
Background
Ahtwana Marie Smith brought the action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. She invoked diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain cases between citizens of different states when the amount at issue exceeds $75,000. Smith alleged that she was a citizen of New York and named numerous defendants, but she did not allege facts showing the citizenship of any defendant.
The court also considered federal-question jurisdiction, which applies when a claim arises under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court found that Smith did not invoke that basis of jurisdiction and that the complaint’s allegations did not suggest a federal-law claim.
Court’s Analysis
Federal district courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they may hear only cases authorized by federal law. The court explained that it must dismiss an action if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Because Smith had not pleaded the defendants’ citizenships, she had not met her burden of showing diversity jurisdiction. The court also concluded that the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
The court nevertheless explained that pro se pleadings—filings by people representing themselves—must be read liberally. It also noted that a pro se plaintiff generally should receive an opportunity to correct defects, including by removing dispensable nondiverse defendants if necessary.
Disposition
The court granted Smith leave to amend the complaint. The amended complaint must plead facts showing diversity or federal-question jurisdiction and must explain the claims against each defendant. It must identify the relevant people and their roles, describe what each defendant allegedly did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, explain the alleged violations and injuries, state the relief sought, and provide addresses for the named defendants.
The amended complaint must be filed with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and marked with docket number 21-CV-0571 (PAE). It will completely replace the original complaint. No summons will issue at that time. The court stated that if Smith does not comply within the permitted period and cannot show good cause, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.