Roberts v. Amtrack Railroad Company
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-08093
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Roberts v. Amtrak Railroad Company was dismissed after no amended complaint was filed, Judge Swain ruled, citing immunity and jurisdiction problems.
Jazmine Iman Roberts’s action was dismissed; the order also directed entry of judgment in favor of the defendants, Amtrak Railroad Company and Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation.
What happened
Jazmine Iman Roberts sued Amtrak Railroad Company and Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation. The court had previously ordered Roberts to file an amended complaint within 60 days, warning that failing to do so could lead to dismissal. Roberts did not file one.
The court dismissed the complaint because it did not state a claim for relief, was barred by sovereign immunity, and did not fall within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain further ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Roberts permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. The case was dismissed.
The detailed version
- Roberts v. Amtrack Railroad Company · No. 1:23-cv-08093
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 9, 2024
Background
Jazmine Iman Roberts brought an action against Amtrak Railroad Company and Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation. The complaint was filed without prepaying the court’s filing fee under the federal statute allowing a person to proceed without paying that fee.
By an order dated October 16, 2023, the court directed Roberts to file an amended complaint within 60 days. That order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Roberts did not file an amended complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It also dismissed the complaint as barred by sovereign immunity, which generally protects certain governments and government entities from lawsuits without consent, and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to hear the matter. The court cited the federal screening statute and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith because it would not present a nonfrivolous issue. It therefore denied Roberts permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment in the action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.