Askins v. Santos
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00817
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Askins v. Santos, Judge Swain ordered Delroy Askins to explain within 30 days why his case should not be dismissed for lacking federal jurisdiction.
Delroy Askins was required to show why his lawsuit against Marlene Santos and Robert Santos should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order also denied Askins fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Askins v. Santos, Delroy Askins sued Marlene Santos and Robert Santos over alleged mistreatment, an assault, and being locked out of his deceased mother’s apartment. He said his civil, constitutional, and human rights were violated, but did not identify a specific federal law supporting his claims.
The court also found that Askins had not shown diversity jurisdiction because he stated that he and the defendants reside in New York. The order did not dismiss the case at this stage; instead, it required Askins to submit a written explanation within 30 days showing why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain warned that the complaint will be dismissed if Askins does not respond or if his response does not establish jurisdiction. The court also denied him fee-free status for an appeal, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Askins v. Santos · No. 1:22-cv-00817
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
Delroy Askins, appearing without a lawyer, sued his sister, Marlene Santos, and her husband, Robert Santos. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that his civil, constitutional, and human rights had been violated. His allegations concerned events in November 2020 involving a dispute over his deceased mother, including an alleged assault by Marlene Santos, disagreements about his mother’s care, being prevented from communicating with housing management, and being locked out of his mother’s apartment.
Askins sought money damages, although he stated that any money recovered would be donated and would not go to him. He also asked the court to require Marlene Santos to identify people who were present during the alleged incident.
Jurisdiction analysis
The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Although Askins invoked federal-question jurisdiction, the court found that he did not identify a federal law supporting his claims and that his factual allegations, even when read liberally, did not suggest a plausible federal cause of action.
The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires different state citizenship between the plaintiff and all defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court stated that Askins indicated in his complaint that he and the defendants reside in New York, which precluded complete diversity of citizenship.
Order and effect
The court directed Askins to file a written declaration within 30 days explaining why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It stated that the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if Askins does not submit the declaration or if the declaration does not establish jurisdiction.
The court also certified under the applicable statute that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Askins fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.