Cruzado v. Combs

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 27, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-08203·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANTHONY NELSON CRUZADO, Plaintiff, 24-CV-8203 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL SHAWN JOHN COMBS; KEVIN HEART; WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD USHER R AND B; JAY-Z, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in Suwannee Correctional Institution in Florida, brings this action pro se. By order dated February 26, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with 30 days’ leave to replead. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that in September 2013, he was a guest at a “freck off” party hosted by Sean Combs in an unspecified location.1 Combs allegedly gave Plaintiff “a shot to drek and told [him] let go to the real prarty.” (ECF 1 at 1.) In the room, Combs allegedly pinned Plaintiff on the bed “and rap me with 3 other men name Jay-Z UR.” (Id. at 2.) It is unclear if any of the events alleged in the complaint are asserted to have occurred in New York.2 Plaintiff brings this suit against Combs, Kevin Heart, “Usher R & B,” and Jay Z. Plaintiff seeks $175 million from Jay-Z, $88 million from Kevin Heart, $145 million from Usher, and $300 million from Combs.

1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless noted otherwise. 2 Public records of the Florida Department of Corrections indicate that Plaintiff spent much of his life in Florida, beginning in 2002. In his complaint, Plaintiff states that in 2024, he was found incompetent to stand trial in Tampa, Florida (ECF 1 at 2), though the Court was unable to locate any public records confirming this. Plaintiff was recently convicted in this district of a crime he committed by mail during his incarceration in Florida. See United States v. Cruzado, No. 20-CR-0565 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.). On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff was found in that matter to be “fully competent and able to proceed with his sentencing.” Id. (ECF 61 at 6.) Because it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of this matter, the Court defers consideration at this stage of whether to appoint a guardian ad litem. See Berrios v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that where the district court views it as “clear that no substantial claim could be asserted on behalf of [an incompetent person], it may dismiss the complaint, but without prejudice”). DISCUSSION A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Federal Court The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited. It is set forth generally in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, or when plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. “[A]ny party or the court sua

sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, may raise the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.” Manway Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Hartford, 711 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1983); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative . . . .”). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal Question Jurisdiction To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal law if the complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that

the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)). Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the facts alleged sound in state law and do not suggest any obvious federal claim. Plaintiff thus does not show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this matter. Diversity Jurisdiction Plaintiff also does not allege facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity jurisdiction of this action. To establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a plaintiff must first allege that the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states. Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998). In addition, the plaintiff must allege to a “reasonable probability” that the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cruzado v. Combs, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Cruzado v. Combs (Cruzado v. Combs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht
524 U.S. 381 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh
547 U.S. 677 (Supreme Court, 2006)
John Anthony Housand v. Maxwell Heiman
594 F.2d 923 (Second Circuit, 1979)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Berrios v. New York City Housing Authority
564 F.3d 130 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Blumatte v. Quinn
521 F. Supp. 2d 308 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Johnson v. Smithsonian Institution
4 F. App'x 69 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)