Askins v. Santos

Background

Delroy Askins, who is representing himself, sued Marlene Santos, his sister. Askins had previously filed a substantially similar action involving Santos and her husband; the court refers to that matter as an earlier related proceeding, docket No. 22-CV-0817. Askins later withdrew that earlier case.

In this action, Askins invoked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On the court’s general complaint form, he stated that his constitutional, civil, human, and disability rights had been violated. He alleged that Santos, whom he identified as a caretaker for their mother, mistreated him and their mother because of their disabilities. He asserted a wrongful-death claim and requested money damages and injunctive relief.

The court had already granted Askins permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. That status requires the court to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or otherwise falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional analysis

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or over disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Merely checking the federal-question box on a complaint does not establish federal jurisdiction.

The court concluded that Askins had not identified a federal law creating his claims, and that his factual allegations, read liberally because he is self-represented, did not plausibly show a federal cause of action. The court also determined that Askins’s reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act was misplaced because that statute did not apply to the circumstances described in the complaint.

The court separately found no basis for diversity jurisdiction. Askins’s complaint indicated that both he and Santos resided in New York, so they were not citizens of different states for purposes of that jurisdictional basis.

Order

The court did not enter a final dismissal in this order. Instead, it directed Askins to show cause by filing a written declaration within 30 days explaining why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The declaration was to be submitted to the Pro Se Intake Unit and identify docket number 22-CV-11011 (LTS).

The order states that the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if Askins does not submit the declaration within 30 days or if the declaration fails to establish jurisdiction. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Askins permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.