Milhouse v. Morgan and Morgan P.A.

Background

Muhammad Milhouse, a New York resident proceeding without a lawyer, sued Morgan and Morgan, P.A.; Kathleen Beatty; Tara Cruz; Tariq Shury; and unidentified individuals. He alleged that Morgan and Morgan had agreed to represent him in a matter arising from an assault and rape that he said occurred while he was housed in a COVID-19 isolation unit at a Hilton Inn in New York. He alleged that the law firm later declined representation and asserted a breach-of-contract claim seeking $544,000,000.

The court had previously allowed Milhouse to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because the complaint was filed without prepayment, the court was required to screen it and dismiss it if, among other grounds, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal power to hear a case.

Jurisdiction

Milhouse invoked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court explained that this jurisdiction generally requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. It concluded that Milhouse alleged only a breach-of-contract claim, which arises under state law, and that merely citing federal-question jurisdiction did not establish federal jurisdiction.

The court also considered diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. That form of jurisdiction requires complete diversity, meaning that no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant, and generally requires more than $75,000 in dispute. The court found that Milhouse, Beatty, and Cruz all appeared to be domiciled in New York. Because that prevented complete diversity, the court concluded that it could not hear the state-law contract claim under diversity jurisdiction either.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), with 30 days’ leave to replead. It granted Milhouse leave to reassert his breach-of-contract claim and to remove any dispensable defendants whose shared citizenship would defeat diversity jurisdiction. The court noted that claims against defendants identified as being in Florida might also require consideration of personal jurisdiction.

The court separately certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The order did not decide whether Milhouse’s breach-of-contract allegations were legally valid on their merits.