Jones-Bey v. Sirius-El

Background

Sister E. Jones-Bey brought the action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. She named Robert Jones-Bey, D. Clark-El, Yusef Sirius-El, and Walter Clendenin-Bey as defendants. She alleged that Sirius-El violated her First Amendment rights and New York criminal laws; that the other defendants failed to stop the conduct because of bias related to her decision not to date or marry people they wanted her to marry; and that her mental-health disclosures were used to interfere with obtaining documents for resources for her faith-based organization.

She also alleged that Sirius-El organized harassment that damaged her reputation, made slanderous and libelous statements, caused mental and emotional trauma, and contributed to her being separated from members of her community. She alleged that her business suffered and that her intellectual property was taken and published as someone else’s. She sought compensatory and punitive damages.

Prior Ruling and Amended Complaint

In an earlier order, the court dismissed the constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the defendants were private parties and were not alleged to work for a state or local government body. The court also dismissed any claims under criminal laws because neither a private plaintiff nor the court can require prosecutors to initiate criminal proceedings. The court denied leave to replead those claims because amendment would be futile.

The earlier order also identified possible state-law claims, including defamation or slander, but found that the complaint did not establish diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires citizens of different states and an amount in dispute exceeding $75,000. The court had questioned whether the New York addresses listed for several defendants were their homes or instead employment or temple addresses.

In the amended complaint, Jones-Bey again listed New York addresses for herself, Sirius-El, Clendenin-Bey, and Clark-El. She alleged that Robert Jones-Bey was a resident of Washington, D.C., which sufficiently alleged diverse citizenship between her and Jones-Bey for purposes of the court’s analysis. But she did not allege facts showing that her claims against him were worth more than $75,000. The court also found it unclear what state-law claim, if any, she was asserting against him, because most of her allegations concerned Sirius-El.

Ruling

The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It dismissed the constitutional claims under § 1983 and any criminal-law claims for the reasons given in the earlier order.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Jones-Bey 30 days to file a second amended complaint asserting a viable state-law claim against Robert Jones-Bey over which the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that leave to replead was granted only for state-law claims against Jones-Bey. It warned that constitutional claims against a private party or state-law claims against a nondiverse defendant would be summarily dismissed. If Jones-Bey does not replead, or does not establish diversity jurisdiction, the court said it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The order did not issue a summons at that time.