McCabe v. Trump
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-09396
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In McCabe v. Keenan et al., Judge Swain dismissed the action on jurisdiction and venue grounds but allowed a second amended complaint.
Mary Jo McCabe’s claims against the Social Security Administration and the other named defendants; the SSA claims were dismissed, while the state-law claims against the remaining defendants could be repleaded within 30 days.
What happened
In McCabe v. Keenan et al., Mary Jo McCabe, representing herself, sued Maynard James Keenan, the Social Security Administration, and members of the McCabe family. She described alleged abuse, stalking, assaults, discrimination, and other conduct and sought money, protection, legal assistance, and other relief.
The court dismissed the claims against the Social Security Administration because the government generally cannot be sued without its permission, and McCabe did not identify an applicable waiver. It also dismissed the state-law claims against the other defendants because McCabe did not adequately allege that the parties were citizens of different states, that more than $75,000 was at issue, or that the Southern District of New York was the proper venue.
Judge Swain gave McCabe 30 days to file a second amended complaint addressing diversity jurisdiction and venue for the state-law claims. The court did not terminate the case immediately, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and stated that judgment would be entered if McCabe did not replead within the allowed time.
The detailed version
- McCabe v. Trump · No. 1:23-cv-09396
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 2, 2024
Background
Mary Jo McCabe appeared without a lawyer and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. Her amended complaint named Maynard James Keenan, the “Social Security Disability Dept.,” which the court understood to mean the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the “John J. McCabe Family,” which the court understood to include John J. McCabe, Patricia McCabe, Brian McCabe, Julie Thelen, and Katie McCabe Vanderwig.
McCabe appeared to seek money damages and court orders based on alleged violations involving religious freedom, speech, due process, discrimination, stalking, libel, slander, and other alleged abuse. She alleged that events occurred approximately in 2003 and in September 2023, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Brooklyn, New York. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees.
Claims Against the Social Security Administration
The court dismissed McCabe’s claims against the SSA based on sovereign immunity, a legal rule that generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has waived that protection. The court explained that Congress has created limited waivers for judicial review of certain final Social Security benefits decisions and certain final federal-agency actions, but McCabe was not seeking either type of review. The court also stated that the United States had not waived immunity for McCabe’s claims seeking monetary relief in addition to benefits.
The court therefore dismissed the SSA claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to hear them, and because the claims sought monetary relief from an immune defendant.
State-Law Claims Against the Other Defendants
The court understood McCabe’s claims against the remaining defendants to arise under state law. Because the court dismissed all of the federal-law claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in the early stage of the case. It nevertheless examined whether diversity jurisdiction could support the state-law claims.
Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. McCabe alleged that she was a citizen of New York and that Keenan was possibly a citizen of Utah, but she did not allege the citizenship of the individual McCabe-family defendants. She also did not allege facts sufficient to show that the state-law claims exceeded $75,000. The court dismissed those claims for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
The court separately dismissed the state-law claims because McCabe had not shown that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue. She did not allege that all individual defendants resided in New York with at least one residing in the Southern District. She also alleged that relevant events occurred in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Brooklyn, New York, which are in other federal judicial districts. The court concluded that transferring the case would not serve the interests of justice.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action. It granted McCabe 30 days to file a second amended complaint asserting state-law claims against the remaining defendants and alleging facts showing both diversity jurisdiction and proper venue in the Southern District of New York. If she did not file within that period, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action.
Judge Swain certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied McCabe permission to proceed without prepaying appellate fees. The court directed the Clerk not to terminate the action pending further order.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.