Bell v. New York Legal Assistance Group

Background

Anthony George Bell proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without paying court fees in advance. He sued the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), Lisa Rivera of NYLAG, and Mr. Romo of NYLAG. Bell alleged that the defendants were supposed to advise him about his case against the City of New York but did not respond for weeks. He alleged that, about one week before paperwork was due, Mr. Romo told him they would not help him for ten months because they had more important work helping immigrants. Bell said he lost his case and requested $5 million in damages.

Federal-question jurisdiction

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Bell invoked federal-question jurisdiction, but the court found that his allegations did not identify a viable federal-law claim. Instead, they suggested a legal-malpractice claim, which generally arises under state law.

The court also addressed the possibility that Bell intended to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such a claim requires facts showing that each defendant acted under color of state law. The court stated that NYLAG and its employees were private actors and were not alleged to be employed by a state or local government. The court therefore found no viable § 1983 claim suggested by the allegations.

Diversity jurisdiction

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires the plaintiff and defendants to be citizens of different states and requires a claim exceeding $75,000. Bell alleged that he was a New York resident, but he did not allege where NYLAG was incorporated or where it maintained its headquarters. He also did not provide the individual defendants’ residential addresses, instead listing their New York, New York employment address. The court therefore found that Bell had not alleged facts establishing diversity jurisdiction.

For purposes of the order, the court assumed that Bell’s claim exceeded $75,000 because he requested $5 million. It stated that an amended complaint would need to include facts supporting the value of the claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed Bell’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court allowed amendment because Bell might be able to allege additional facts establishing diversity jurisdiction. If Bell did not file an amended complaint within the permitted time, the Clerk of Court would be directed to enter judgment.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Bell permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.