Dickerson v. Dickerson
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-10747
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Dickerson v. Dickerson, Judge Swain dismissed David Dickerson’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied leave to amend.
The order dismissed David Dwain Dickerson’s claims against Wendy Dickerson and denied Dickerson permission to amend and fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Dickerson v. Dickerson, David Dwain Dickerson, representing himself, sued his sister, Wendy Dickerson, in her capacity as administratrix of their father’s estate. He alleged that Wendy financially, mentally, and emotionally harmed their father and sought money damages.
The court said the allegations described possible state-law claims involving elder abuse and financial fraud, not claims created by federal law. The court also said Dickerson did not establish diversity jurisdiction because he alleged that both he and Wendy lived in New York.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, denied leave to amend because amendment would be futile, and denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Dickerson v. Dickerson · No. 1:23-cv-10747
- Laura Swain
- May 22, 2024
Background
David Dwain Dickerson, who was representing himself, filed the action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction against his sister, Wendy Dickerson, identified in the caption as administratrix over the estate of Elmore Winifred Dickerson. The court had previously allowed Dickerson to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The complaint alleged that Wendy exploited their deceased father financially, mentally, and emotionally. Dickerson alleged that she used their father’s GI Bill to buy a home, moved him there only after learning that Dickerson was investigating her for elder abuse and financial fraud, failed to provide proper care, prevented Dickerson from seeing him, and took insurance money from the estate after his death. He sought money damages.
Jurisdiction
The court explained that federal courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or cases involving citizens of different states when the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. Dickerson invoked federal-question jurisdiction, but the court found that his allegations appeared to concern elder abuse and financial fraud under New York law. Merely invoking federal jurisdiction did not create federal jurisdiction.
The court also found no basis for diversity jurisdiction because Dickerson alleged that both he and Wendy resided in New York. The court therefore concluded that Dickerson had not shown either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to give Dickerson permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court terminated all other pending matters, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The opinion also refers to the defendant in one passage as serving as executrix of the parties’ mother’s estate, while the caption and other portions refer to the father’s estate. The opinion does not explain this discrepancy.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.