Hursh v. Aponte

Background

Kris Hursh brought the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He sued Joe Aponte and Sandra Ortiz, whom the opinion identifies as employees of Cabin Bar; Crissanya Johnson, whom it identifies as a private investigator; and Charles Coller. Hursh invoked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and alleged that the defendants violated his rights.

Hursh alleged that the defendants sought evidence against him, hacked his phone and emails, trespassed into his home, and interfered with his counsel. In a proposed request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, he also alleged criminal trespass, unlawful surveillance, eavesdropping, electronic harassment, stalking, hacking, and filming. The court noted that he did not provide facts explaining what any individual defendant did or failed to do.

Court’s Analysis

The court first addressed subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. It explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court held that merely invoking federal jurisdiction was insufficient. Because Hursh sued private individuals and did not identify facts showing a federal constitutional or statutory claim, the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

The court also stated that Hursh had not shown diversity jurisdiction. Based on the information in the complaint, the court said Hursh indicated that he and the defendants were citizens of New York, and he did not allege facts showing that more than $75,000 was at stake. The court therefore concluded that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable as well.

The court separately considered whether the complaint stated a claim for relief. Under the federal pleading rules, a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make it reasonable to infer that a defendant is liable. The court found that Hursh’s complaint did not provide facts about what happened or how any defendant violated his federal rights. It therefore held that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The court declined to give Hursh permission to amend. It recognized that people representing themselves are generally given an opportunity to correct a defective complaint, but concluded that amendment would be futile because the complaint’s defects could not be cured.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It denied Hursh’s request for injunctive relief and directed the clerk to terminate the other pending matters. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hursh permission to appeal without prepaying fees.