McIver v. Murray-Comer

Background

Tamicko Murray McIver filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The court had previously granted that request. McIver invoked diversity jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states when the amount at issue exceeds $75,000. The complaint identified McIver as residing in Mt. Vernon, New York, and Doris Murray as residing in Texas. McIver alleged that Murray had stolen her identity since the 1990s, used McIver’s Social Security number in Georgia and Virginia, and placed a car and house in McIver’s name. McIver sought money damages.

Court’s review

Because McIver was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or did not fall within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally, but they still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and must satisfy the federal pleading rule requiring a short and plain statement of the basis for relief.

Diversity jurisdiction

The court found that the complaint suggested the parties were citizens of different states, but McIver had not alleged facts showing a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeded the required $75,000. The court granted McIver leave to amend to provide that information.

Identity-theft claim

The court discussed New York General Business Law § 380-s, which prohibits knowingly using another person’s name or personal information without consent and with intent to defraud to obtain or use credit, goods, services, or anything else of value. The court found McIver’s allegations too limited to support a viable claim because she did not provide details such as when and where the specific events occurred.

The court also explained that New York General Business Law § 380-n generally requires an identity-theft action to be filed within two years after the liability arises, with a possible later period when a material and willful misrepresentation is discovered. McIver stated that the conduct began in the 1990s and indicated that she knew of at least some conduct in 2004 or 2005, when she contacted the Internal Revenue Service about Murray’s tax filings. The court said the claim appeared untimely, but it was unclear when particular events occurred and when McIver discovered them. The court therefore granted leave to amend rather than ending the case at that point.

Privacy protection

The complaint included a full Social Security number. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 generally permits court filings to contain only the last four digits of a Social Security number. The court directed the Clerk of Court to restrict electronic access to the original complaint to case participants and required McIver to follow the redaction rule in future filings.

Litigation-history warning

The court noted that McIver had filed thirteen cases in the federal district since March 1, 2018. Without reproducing the names of the cited earlier proceedings, the court stated that McIver was or should already be aware of federal pleading requirements. It warned that further nonmeritorious litigation in the district could result in an order barring her from filing new actions without paying filing fees unless she first obtained permission.

Disposition

The court granted McIver leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to address the jurisdictional and identity-theft issues, be labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-10538 (LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The order stated that if McIver failed to comply within the deadline and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.