Washington v. Chong
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-01936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Washington v. Chong, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction and denied Washington’s requests for free counsel.
Charmeen D. Washington’s complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and her renewed requests for pro bono counsel were denied. The order states that she may bring her claims in state court or another court of general jurisdiction.
What happened
In Washington v. Chong, Charmeen D. Washington, representing herself, described health problems after an eye examination, including that her brain “hurt” and that she became emotionally weak and gained weight. The court previously found that she had not shown a basis for federal jurisdiction and gave her 60 days to file an amended complaint.
Washington did not file an amended complaint. She instead filed two more requests for the court to locate a free lawyer, after an earlier request had been denied. The court said it could not appoint counsel because it lacked jurisdiction over the case.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Washington’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied the renewed requests for pro bono counsel. The court said the order did not prevent Washington from bringing her claims in state court or another court of general jurisdiction, and it denied free-court status for any appeal because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Chong · No. 1:23-cv-01936
- Laura Swain
- July 24, 2023
Background
Charmeen D. Washington filed the action without a lawyer. She alleged that, after an eye examination, her brain “hurt,” she had to go to Bellevue when she became emotionally weak, and she gained about 10–20 pounds in about 30 days.
In an earlier order, the court explained that federal courts have limited authority to hear cases and found that Washington had not pleaded facts establishing subject matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal power to hear the case. The court gave her 60 days to file an amended complaint and stated that failing to do so would result in dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That earlier order also stated that she could refile her claims in another forum.
Requests for counsel and dismissal
Washington asked the court to locate a pro bono lawyer, meaning a lawyer providing services without charge. The court denied that request without prejudice to renewal after she filed an amended complaint. Washington filed two additional requests for counsel, but she did not file an amended complaint.
The court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. It therefore denied Washington’s renewed requests for pro bono counsel and dismissed her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The opinion does not state that the dismissal itself was with or without prejudice. It states that nothing in the order prevented Washington from bringing her claims in state court or another court of general jurisdiction.
Disposition
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. She also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington the ability to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.