Gibson v. Pasta City

Background

Brian Marshall Gibson proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that he suffered injuries after buying and consuming insect-infested pasta from the Sing Sing Correctional Facility commissary. He named Pasta City and Northshore Bottling as defendants and sought $7,000,000 in damages.

Gibson asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by state actors, as well as claims under state law. The court had previously given him time to file an amended complaint after dismissing his original claims and allowing him to try to provide facts supporting his claims and diversity jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the amended complaint under the statute governing complaints filed by people who are allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally valid claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

For the § 1983 claims, the court again concluded that Gibson had not alleged facts showing that Pasta City or Northshore acted as a state actor. Because the defendants appeared to be private entities, and Gibson again did not allege facts connecting them to state action, the court dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim.

For the state-law claims, the court found no diversity jurisdiction. Gibson appeared to allege that he was a New York citizen, while also alleging that both defendants were incorporated in New York and had their principal places of business in New York. The court therefore concluded that the parties were not citizens of different states. It also stated that Gibson had not shown that the state-law claims exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional amount, despite his request for $7,000,000 in damages. The court dismissed the state-law claims to the extent they were based on diversity jurisdiction.

Because it dismissed the claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, and because diversity jurisdiction was absent, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Gibson’s status allowing him to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.