Garber v. Burke

Background

Alexa Rose Garber, appearing without a lawyer, filed the action against Alison Taylor Burke and received permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Garber alleged that Burke committed various civil and criminal wrongs, including harassment, cyber harassment, defamation, invasion of privacy, illegal surveillance or stalking, cyber identity or information theft, libel, slander, and false claims and accusations. Garber also alleged intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. She sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction when a complaint raises a federal question or when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

The court held that Garber did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. Although she invoked federal-question jurisdiction, she did not plead facts showing that her claims arose under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Merely citing federal jurisdiction does not create jurisdiction.

The court also held that Garber did not establish diversity jurisdiction. The complaint stated that both Garber and Burke resided in New York, which the court found precluded complete diversity of citizenship. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Leave to Amend

The court stated that pro se plaintiffs are generally given an opportunity to amend defective complaints, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. Because the jurisdictional defects could not be cured by amendment, the court declined to grant Garber leave to amend.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Garber permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.