Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Baker Botts L.L.P.

Background

Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo, representing himself, filed an amended complaint after receiving permission to amend. Judge Seibel incorporated two earlier orders and said the amended complaint remained far from the “short and plain” statement required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The court also found that Kamdem-Ouaffo had not alleged facts meeting the unusually demanding standard for relief under Rule 60(d), which concerns certain forms of relief from a judgment.

Federal claims

The amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including due-process and equal-protection claims, and under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The court described the two § 1983 counts as duplicative. It found that many of the individuals Kamdem-Ouaffo sought to sue were judges or court personnel involved in matters in Nassau County and New Jersey and were immune from suit. Claims against a bank and debt collectors under § 1983 also failed because that statute permits constitutional claims against state actors, not private parties. To the extent Kamdem-Ouaffo intended to sue an arbitrator, the court said an arbitrator is not a state actor. The claim against a New Jersey sheriff was also insufficient because the only alleged conduct was enforcing a facially valid court order.

The court further found that Kamdem-Ouaffo had not plausibly alleged that any defendant acted because of his membership in a protected class or treated him differently from an extremely similarly situated person, as required for an equal-protection claim. The court also concluded that it lacked venue over conduct occurring in the Eastern District of New York or the District of New Jersey.

As to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim, the court noted that Kamdem-Ouaffo had identified debt collectors but had not plausibly stated a claim against them. The alleged misconduct was directed at underlying creditors or court personnel, rather than the debt collectors, and Kamdem-Ouaffo did not identify the statutory provision allegedly violated or explain how the debt collectors violated it. The court also stated that the relevant debt-collection activity appeared to have occurred in the District of New Jersey, so venue did not lie in the Southern District of New York.

Jurisdiction and disposition

The court dismissed the federal claims. Because no federal claims remained, Judge Seibel declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any remaining state claims. The court also found no basis for diversity jurisdiction because Kamdem-Ouaffo had not provided the domicile of many proposed individual defendants. The court explained that complete diversity would require every defendant to be domiciled in a state other than New Jersey, which, according to Kamdem-Ouaffo, was not the case.

Because Kamdem-Ouaffo had already amended once and had not followed the guidance in the earlier orders, the court declined to grant leave to amend a second time. The amended complaint was dismissed, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not expressly state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.