McKenzie v. Downer
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05558
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In McKenzie v. Downer, Judge Swain dismissed McKenzie’s complaint because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
The dismissal ended Kellyann A. McKenzie’s federal action against Devonnie Downer. The court also denied McKenzie permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
What happened
In McKenzie v. Downer, Kellyann A. McKenzie, representing herself, sued Devonnie Downer for intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought $1 million. McKenzie alleged that Downer used “black magic” to interfere with her relationship and cause other harm.
The court said the claim was based on state law, not federal law, so it did not present a federal question. The court also found no diversity jurisdiction because McKenzie alleged that both she and Downer were citizens of New York. Changing the complaint could not fix that problem because Downer was the only defendant, so the court did not allow an amendment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and entered judgment. The court also denied McKenzie permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- McKenzie v. Downer · No. 1:23-cv-05558
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
Kellyann A. McKenzie, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Devonnie Downer. McKenzie invoked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and brought a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking $1 million in damages.
McKenzie described Downer as an accountant working in Westchester and Bronx Counties. She alleged that her “soulmate” returned to her home in Queens County and cared for her while she suffered from hyperpigmentation and a first-degree chemical burn to her face. McKenzie alleged that she later learned Downer had used “black magic” to keep her and her “soulmate” apart and to cause her unborn child not to survive.
The court had previously granted McKenzie permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In reviewing a complaint filed under that procedure, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Federal-Question Jurisdiction
The court held that McKenzie’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim did not arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Simply invoking federal-question jurisdiction did not create federal jurisdiction when the complaint contained no facts showing a federal-law claim.
Diversity Jurisdiction
The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the plaintiff and defendant to be citizens of different states and the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000. McKenzie alleged that both she and Downer were citizens of New York. Because the parties were not citizens of different states, the court held that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable.
The court concluded that allowing McKenzie to amend the complaint would be futile. Downer was the only defendant, and the jurisdictional problem caused by the parties’ alleged New York citizenship could not be cured by removing a nondiverse defendant.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It entered judgment and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith; accordingly, it denied McKenzie permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.