Marcus v. Alem Enterprise, Inc.

Background

Alpheaus E. Marcus, appearing without a lawyer, sued Alem Enterprise, Inc.; Bete Realty; Abjul Ahmed; Mizrahi Law Offices, LLC; Robert Mizrahi; and Clarence Young. Marcus identified the defendants as companies, owners or managing agents, an attorney and law office, and the building superintendent. He alleged that he rented apartment 4B after responding to a Craigslist listing and later encountered a broken bedroom window, inadequate heat, a clogged bathtub, unexpected responsibility for electricity charges, and other problems. He also alleged that the apartment had been illegally converted from a studio. Marcus sought money damages and disciplinary sanctions against Robert Mizrahi.

The opinion also noted that Alem Enterprises, Inc. had filed a landlord-tenant action against Marcus in the Harlem Community Justice Center concerning nonpayment of rent, with a scheduled appearance date of January 8, 2024.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court had previously allowed Marcus to proceed without paying filing fees. It explained that it must dismiss a case filed without fees if, among other things, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal power to hear the dispute.

Marcus invoked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and cited the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly called RICO. The court held that merely citing a federal law does not create federal jurisdiction. Marcus’s allegations primarily concerned an alleged breach of a residential lease, and the court stated that federal courts do not have federal-question jurisdiction over ordinary state landlord-tenant matters.

The court also held that Marcus did not plead facts supporting a civil RICO claim. A civil RICO claim generally requires facts showing, among other things, at least two racketeering acts forming a pattern, an enterprise, an effect on interstate or foreign commerce, and injury to the plaintiff’s business or property caused by a violation of the statute. For a RICO conspiracy claim, the plaintiff must allege an agreement to form or join a RICO enterprise and to commit qualifying predicate acts. The court found that Marcus did not allege facts showing that the defendants agreed to carry out the alleged acts.

The court further stated that Marcus could not use a federal criminal statute to initiate the arrest or prosecution of the defendants because prosecution decisions belong to prosecutors. To the extent Marcus attempted to assert constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court stated that he had not shown a viable basis because the defendants were private parties, not governmental actors.

The court also found no diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Marcus had not alleged that he and the defendants were citizens of different states, and the complaint indicated that Marcus and the personally involved defendants resided in New York. The court also referenced the requirement that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Although courts generally give an unrepresented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint, the court found amendment would be futile because Marcus had not pleaded facts suggesting a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court therefore denied leave to amend.

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Marcus fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment. The court stated that the dismissal did not prevent Marcus from pursuing his claims against the defendants in the appropriate state court.