Temesgen v. D'Agusto

Background

Israel Temesgen, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued John D’Agusto. Temesgen identified D’Agusto as the manager of the Washington Jefferson Hotel in New York, New York. He alleged that on August 19, 2019, D’Agusto said, “I opened your Immigration Document. Some pages are missing.” Temesgen identified “Invasion of private property” as the violation and requested $100,000 in damages. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction and Claim Analysis

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction generally requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Simply stating that a case involves a federal question does not establish jurisdiction.

The court interpreted Temesgen’s allegations as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. The court held that Temesgen had not stated such a claim because D’Agusto was alleged to be a private person, and the complaint did not allege that he worked for a state or other government body.

The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which can apply when opposing parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is at stake. Although Temesgen sought $100,000, the court found that he had not alleged facts showing the required difference in state citizenship. Temesgen stated that he resided in New York, New York, and that D’Agusto worked there, but he did not allege where D’Agusto was domiciled. The court stated that it did not appear D’Agusto resided or was domiciled outside New York.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court granted Temesgen 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must state facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction and must provide a short and plain statement showing why Temesgen is entitled to relief. It will completely replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims Temesgen wishes to retain must be repeated.

The court instructed Temesgen to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-2048 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. If Temesgen failed to comply and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.