Jones-Bey v. Powell

Background

Sister E. Jones-Bey brought this action pro se against Viknel Powell and sought $500,000 in damages. The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, alleging that Jones-Bey was a citizen of New York and Powell was a citizen of Jamaica. Powell’s answer stated that she was a citizen of New York. The court therefore ordered Jones-Bey to explain why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal power to hear the case.

In response, Jones-Bey acknowledged that Powell was a New York citizen for purposes of Section 1332, eliminating the alleged diversity between the parties. Jones-Bey instead argued that the court had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Powell had violated Jones-Bey’s rights under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

Court’s Analysis

The court construed Jones-Bey’s constitutional claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a cause of action against a person who, while acting under color of state law, violates constitutional rights. A private person can be sued under Section 1983 only if the person is a state actor or acted jointly with the state or its agents.

The court applied the pleading standard associated with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court accepts alleged facts as true at this stage but does not accept bare legal conclusions without supporting facts. It found that Jones-Bey had not alleged in the complaint or later filings that Powell was a state actor or acted under color of state law.

Disposition

The court concluded that Jones-Bey had not adequately pleaded federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. It stated that it therefore lacked jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or § 1331 and dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court granted Jones-Bey leave to amend her complaint. It also explained that a federal jurisdictional dismissal did not prevent her from bringing the action in state court.

The conference scheduled for November 2, 2023 was adjourned indefinitely. The court said it would reschedule the conference if Jones-Bey filed an amended complaint that allowed the court to determine that it had jurisdiction. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Jones-Bey.