Jones v. Roth

Background

Theryn Rashid Jones, who was incarcerated at Orleans Correctional Facility and was proceeding without a lawyer, sued Pamela S. Roth, whom he identified as an attorney. Jones alleged that he hired Roth to investigate and file a case concerning a 2018 assault by correction officers at Albany County Jail. He alleged that Roth repeatedly assured him that she was working on the matter, but later acknowledged that her law license had been suspended and said that her cases were being transferred to Ellie Silverman. Jones alleged that Silverman denied agreeing to take over his cases.

Jones also alleged that Roth insisted on filing a second case concerning a March 2020 injury to his face while he was detained at the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center. Jones said he signed a second contract with Roth, but both matters were ultimately mishandled and became time-barred. He sought $10 million in damages.

Jurisdiction and claims

The court screened Jones’s complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and the federal rules governing dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case.

Jones checked the form indicating that he was asserting violations of his federal constitutional rights. The court explained that such claims generally proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires allegations that the defendant violated a federal right while acting under state authority. Because Roth was alleged to be a private attorney and was not alleged to work for a state or other government body, the court held that Jones could not state a § 1983 claim against her. The court also found no other viable federal-law claim suggested by the complaint.

The court understood Jones to be attempting to assert state-law professional-malpractice claims. Those claims could be heard in federal court through diversity jurisdiction only if the parties were citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Jones did not allege his citizenship before incarceration, Roth’s address or citizenship, or facts showing that the parties were citizens of different states. The court assumed for purposes of the order that the amount of Jones’s claims exceeded $75,000, but found that the citizenship allegations were still insufficient.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court granted Jones 30 days to file an amended complaint asserting his state-law malpractice claims and alleging facts showing diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jones permission to proceed without paying appellate fees. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.