Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 16, 2021

Murray McIver v. Mount Vernon CMV Police Dept.

Judge
Louis Stanton
Docket
1:20-cv-09128
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Judge Stanton dismissed Murray McIver v. Mount Vernon CMV Police Dept. without prejudice because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The plaintiff's federal action against the named defendants was dismissed without prejudice; the court did not decide the underlying hit-and-run-related claims.

What happened

In Murray McIver v. Mount Vernon CMV Police Dept., the plaintiff, representing herself, sued over a hit-and-run accident in Mount Vernon, New York. She named the driver, two unidentified witnesses, the Mount Vernon Police Department, a detective, and an emergency medical technician.

The court found no basis for federal-question jurisdiction because the complaint did not allege a violation of federal law or constitutional rights. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because the complaint indicated that the plaintiff and defendants resided in New York.

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Murray McIver v. Mount Vernon CMV Police Dept. · No. 1:20-cv-09128
Judge
Louis Stanton
Date
Mar. 16, 2021

Background

Tamicko D. Murray McIver, appearing without a lawyer, filed an action concerning a hit-and-run accident that occurred in Mount Vernon, New York. She alleged that on May 19, 2020, she was struck by a vehicle and that the driver left the scene. She named the driver, two unidentified witnesses, the Mount Vernon Police Department, a detective, and an emergency medical technician as defendants. She invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Jurisdictional analysis

Federal-question jurisdiction requires claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court concluded that McIver did not allege facts suggesting that any defendant violated federal law or her constitutional rights. Instead, the court determined that her claims arose under state law.

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and defendants, as well as a claim exceeding $75,000. The court stated that McIver identified herself and the defendants as residing in New York, which prevented complete diversity. Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the power to hear the type of dispute—the court was required to dismiss the action.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The order did not resolve whether McIver’s underlying claims were valid.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.