Miles-Baker v. Banque de France
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-09249
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Miles-Baker v. Banque de France, Judge Swain dismissed the action for jurisdiction and venue problems but allowed amendment within 30 days.
Eric Tymell Miles-Baker’s action against Banque de France was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and improper venue, subject to his 30-day opportunity to file an amended complaint.
What happened
In Eric Tymell Miles-Baker v. Banque de France, Eric Tymell Miles-Baker sued Banque de France while representing himself. He asked the court for guidance about securing an inheritance, issuing a passport, and transferring assets. He relied on diversity jurisdiction, which allows certain disputes involving citizens of different states or countries to be heard in federal court.
The court found that Miles-Baker had not shown a real legal dispute, had not alleged that the amount at issue exceeded $75,000, and had not shown that the Southern District of New York was the proper place for the case. It dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because it was filed in the wrong venue, but granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied Miles-Baker permission to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order allowed amendment but stated that the court would enter judgment dismissing the action if he did not timely file an adequate amended complaint without good cause.
The detailed version
- Miles-Baker v. Banque de France · No. 1:22-cv-09249
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Eric Tymell Miles-Baker, who was representing himself, filed the action against Banque de France and invoked diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Miles-Baker asked the court to help secure an inheritance, issue him a passport, transfer assets into his name and secure them in the United Kingdom, and facilitate correspondence concerning the matter.
He alleged that he was a citizen of New York and that Banque de France was incorporated under French law and had its principal place of business in Paris, France. He submitted documents that he said showed his family coat of arms, his ancestry, and a name change.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The court explained that federal courts have limited power. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires parties from different states or qualifying foreign parties and a claimed amount exceeding $75,000. The court assumed for purposes of the order that the parties were diverse.
The court nevertheless concluded that Miles-Baker had not presented a real legal dispute for the court to resolve. His requests for legal guidance, a passport, and asset transfers were not supported by facts showing an actual controversy between the parties. He also did not allege facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court noted that passport authority belongs to the Secretary of State, not federal courts, and directed Miles-Baker to address in any amended complaint why the probate exception did not prevent federal jurisdiction over his claims.
The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted leave to file an amended complaint containing facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Venue
The court separately considered venue, meaning the proper federal district in which a case may be litigated. Miles-Baker did not allege facts showing that Banque de France resided in the Southern District of New York, that substantial events occurred there, that relevant property was located there, or that Banque de France was subject to personal jurisdiction there.
The court therefore additionally dismissed the action because it was pending in the wrong venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It granted leave to amend to allege facts showing why the Southern District of New York was a proper venue.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court granted Miles-Baker 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the facts and claims he wanted the court to consider, including the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. If he failed to file a timely amended complaint and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying appeal fees.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.