Dickerson v. Dickerson

Background

David Dwain Dickerson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his sister, Wendy Dickerson, in her capacity as executrix of their mother’s estate. The complaint alleged that Wendy Dickerson had persuaded him and their siblings to let her serve as executrix; failed to keep them informed about a wrongful-death lawsuit involving their mother’s death; failed to properly care for their father while he was alive; took insurance money from both deceased parents without distributing it to other family members; and generally failed to act in the best interests of the family or estate. David Dwain Dickerson sought his “fair share” of his mother’s estate.

The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction

The complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction. The court construed the allegations about federally protected rights as attempting to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional or federal rights by people acting under state authority.

The court held that Wendy Dickerson was a private actor and that the complaint did not allege she acted under state authority while serving as executrix. Her former employment with the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office did not establish state action in that capacity. The court therefore found that David Dwain Dickerson had not stated a § 1983 claim, and that the allegations did not establish any other federal-law claim or violation of a federally protected right.

Diversity jurisdiction

The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires opposing parties to be citizens of different states and an amount in dispute exceeding $75,000. The complaint stated that both David Dwain Dickerson and Wendy Dickerson reside in New York. The court concluded that this prevented complete diversity and that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). She certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.