Perry v. Robles

Background

Kahreem Perry, who appeared without a lawyer, sued David Robles and Ivette Agosto. He asserted abuse-of-process claims and sought $2,000,000 in damages. Perry alleged that he and Robles had a physical altercation after Perry objected to Robles’s alleged sale of drugs to teenagers. Perry further alleged that Robles persuaded Agosto to falsely report that Perry had robbed her, leading to Perry’s arrest, arraignment on robbery and burglary charges, and indictment after Agosto testified before a grand jury.

The court had previously allowed Perry to proceed without paying court fees in advance. Because Perry was proceeding without paying those fees in advance, the court reviewed the complaint under the statute governing such cases. The court also had to dismiss the action if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

Jurisdictional analysis

Perry did not identify the basis for federal jurisdiction. The court construed his abuse-of-process claims as state-law claims brought under diversity jurisdiction rather than federal-question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity—that is, no plaintiff and defendant may be citizens of the same state—and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

The court said Perry appeared to allege that Robles and Agosto were New York citizens because he alleged that they lived in an apartment in New York, New York. Perry did not specify his own state citizenship, although the court said his allegations seemed to imply that he also was a New York citizen. The court therefore concluded that the parties did not appear to be diverse. It also found it unclear how Perry’s claims satisfied the requirement that more than $75,000 be in controversy.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Because Perry was representing himself, Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts showing diversity jurisdiction. The amended complaint must identify the state citizenship of all parties when the action was filed, show that neither defendant was a citizen of Perry’s state at that time, and allege facts supporting an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

If Perry does not timely file an amended complaint or show cause for failing to do so, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Perry permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.