Colon v. Lopez

Background

Carmen Iris Colon, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Juan P. Lopez, Jr. She alleged that, between 2016 and 2022, Lopez deceived her during a romantic relationship, borrowed money and received items from her without repaying her, and redirected the money to his wife as part of a scheme to defraud Colon. Colon sought $10,000 in damages and the criminal prosecution of Lopez and his wife. Although Colon invoked federal-question jurisdiction, the court construed the alleged fraud as involving state-law claims.

The court had previously allowed Colon to proceed without paying filing fees. Because the case was filed without prepayment of fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and it also addressed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

Criminal-prosecution requests

The court dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, any claims seeking the criminal prosecution of Lopez and his wife. It explained that the decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, and neither a private person nor the court can direct prosecutors to bring criminal charges. The court concluded that Colon lacked standing—the legal right to ask the court for that relief.

Federal-question and diversity jurisdiction

The court ruled that Colon had not alleged facts showing federal-question jurisdiction because her allegations did not appear to arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court then considered whether her state-law claims could proceed under diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete citizenship diversity between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

The court stated that Colon appeared to allege that she and Lopez were both citizens of New York, so complete diversity was not shown. It also found that Colon had alleged only $10,000 in damages, not an amount exceeding $75,000. The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Disposition

The court granted Colon 60 days to replead her state-law claims in an amended complaint under diversity jurisdiction. The amended complaint must allege that Colon and every named defendant are citizens of different states and must allege facts showing a reasonable probability that the claims exceed $75,000. The order states that, if Colon does not timely file an amended complaint or show cause for failing to do so, the Clerk will be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Colon fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.