Washington v. Professional Claims Bureau

Background

Charmeen Denise Washington brought the action pro se, meaning without a lawyer, and had permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance. She sued Professional Claims Bureau, which the opinion describes as a corporation located in Nassau County, New York. Washington invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that the defendant violated her rights to “private policy,” “pursuit of happiness,” “fire safety,” “human rights,” and “pain tolerance.” She also referred to the First Amendment and “children private policy.” The complaint included statements about alleged rapes in 2011 and 2013. For relief, she requested “justice” and a job title as a survey technician for Goodwill and Metro North Railroad.

Jurisdiction

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which means the federal court lacked legal authority to decide the case. Washington did not plead facts showing that her claims arose under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court specifically held that invoking the First Amendment did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because the First Amendment regulates government conduct, not conduct by a private corporation.

The court also concluded that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable. It stated that both parties resided in New York, defeating the requirement that the parties be citizens of different states. In addition, Washington did not allege facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court therefore found no basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Leave to Amend

The court denied Washington leave to file an amended complaint because it concluded that amendment would be futile. The court stated that the allegations did not suggest that Professional Claims Bureau violated Washington’s federal rights, that the parties were diverse, or that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Order Concerning Future Filings

The court noted that Washington had recently filed 11 other pro se actions and that several had been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or other defects. Rather than immediately imposing a filing restriction, the court ordered Washington to show cause within 30 days why she should not be barred from filing further actions without paying fees in advance unless she first obtained permission from the court. Washington was directed to submit a declaration explaining why the restriction should not be imposed. The court stated that, if she did not submit the declaration on time or did not show good cause, the restriction would be entered.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Washington’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It ordered her to show cause within 30 days concerning a possible restriction on future filings without advance payment of fees, denied fee-free status for any appeal because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.