Davon Chadewick White v. City of New York, et al.

D. Arizona

Davon Chadewick White v. City of New York, et al.

DecidedFebruary 12, 2026

Docket2:26-cv-00844

StatusUnknown

This text of Davon Chadewick White v. City of New York, et al. (Davon Chadewick White v. City of New York, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davon Chadewick White v. City of New York, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Davon Chadewick White, No. CV-26-00844-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of New York, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Davon Chadewick White filed a complaint and an application for leave to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.) White is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis but 17 granting that application allows the court to determine whether the complaint states any 18 claims on which he might be able to obtain relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). It does not. 19 White is attempting to pursue a “loss of sepulcher” claim based on the “loss of [his] 20 spouse,” Cardice Montgomery. (Doc. 1-1 at 2.) White and Montgomery were married and 21 lived in New York City at some point in their relationship. White alleges “the New York 22 City government” knew of this relationship because the government kept a “history of our 23 break ups and get back togethers.” (Doc. 1-1 at 6.) On an unidentified date, White and 24 Montgomery were both living in New York City, but not together, when White received a 25 call from one of Montgomery’s sisters informing White that Montgomery had died. (Doc. 26 1-1 at 6, 10.) White believes he was listed as Montgomery’s next of kin, so New York City 27 and “its agencies failed at the legal thing to do at the death of a married person.” (Doc. 1- 28 1 at 12.) That is, White believes he should have been notified of Montgomery’s death 1 before anyone else. (Doc. 1-1 at 10.) White then had “to call the examiner’s office for 2 updates on his autopsy,” instead of government personnel contacting White. (Doc. 1-1 at 3 10.) 4 Based on these events, White filed this suit against New York City and the New 5 York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner. White seeks $500 million in damages. (Doc. 6 1 at 4.) Based on the allegations in the complaint, the court does not have personal 7 jurisdiction over either defendant and the complaint must be dismissed. 8 “Where an in forma pauperis Complaint lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact 9 pertaining to personal jurisdiction, it must be dismissed sua sponte as frivolous.” Jones v. 10 Riker’s Island Dep’t of Correction, New York, No. 1:25-CV-00261-DCN, 2025 WL 11 2412091, at *1 (D. Idaho Aug. 20, 2025) (simplified). When there is “no applicable federal 12 statute [that] confers personal jurisdiction upon” this court, the court must look to Arizona 13 law. Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739, 750 (9th Cir. 2025). Under Arizona law, the 14 court has “personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant” if that defendant has “certain 15 minimum contacts with [Arizona] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 16 traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. (simplified); Harrington v. 17 Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 142 F.4th 678, 686 (9th Cir. 2025) (“The Arizona 18 long-arm statute is co-extensive with the limits of federal due process under the Fourteenth 19 Amendment.”) (simplified). 20 “There are two forms of personal jurisdiction that a forum state may exercise over 21 a nonresident defendant—general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction.” Boschetto v. 22 Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008). There are no factual allegations showing 23 defendants have “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts with Arizona such that 24 general jurisdiction might exist. Briskin, 135 F.4th at 750. As for specific jurisdiction, the 25 court must apply a three-part test when determining if it exists: 26 (1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or 27 resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the 28 forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; l (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and 3 substantial justice, i.e. 1t must be reasonable. 4 Id. at 750-51. White provides no allegations establishing any of these requirements. ° The complaint alleges White and Montgomery were both in New York City when 6 Montgomery died. And White was still in New York City when officials allegedly failed to contact him regarding Montgomery’s death. Neither New York City nor the Office of 8 the Medical Examiner is alleged to have directed any actions towards any individual in 9 Arizona. White’s claims do not arise out of any Arizona-based activities. And it would not 10 be reasonable to require either New York City or the Office of Chief Medical Examiner to defend claims in Arizona. 12 Given the facts alleged in the complaint, White would not be able to allege any 13 additional facts making personal jurisdiction possible. See United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend can be denied based on IS futility). 6 IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Redact (Doc. 5) is GRANTED and 18 the Motion to Redact (Doc. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court shall place 19 under seal the document filed at Doc. 1-2. This order shall not be sealed. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED a1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case. 22 Dated this 12th day of February, 2026. 23

25 CU ptoa M. CA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham United States District Judge 27 28

_3-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Davon Chadewick White, No. CV-26-00844-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of New York, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Davon Chadewick White filed a complaint and an application for leave to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.) White is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis but 17 granting that application allows the court to determine whether the complaint states any 18 claims on which he might be able to obtain relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). It does not. 19 White is attempting to pursue a “loss of sepulcher” claim based on the “loss of [his] 20 spouse,” Cardice Montgomery. (Doc. 1-1 at 2.) White and Montgomery were married and 21 lived in New York City at some point in their relationship. White alleges “the New York 22 City government” knew of this relationship because the government kept a “history of our 23 break ups and get back togethers.” (Doc. 1-1 at 6.) On an unidentified date, White and 24 Montgomery were both living in New York City, but not together, when White received a 25 call from one of Montgomery’s sisters informing White that Montgomery had died. (Doc. 26 1-1 at 6, 10.) White believes he was listed as Montgomery’s next of kin, so New York City 27 and “its agencies failed at the legal thing to do at the death of a married person.” (Doc. 1- 28 1 at 12.) That is, White believes he should have been notified of Montgomery’s death 1 before anyone else. (Doc. 1-1 at 10.) White then had “to call the examiner’s office for 2 updates on his autopsy,” instead of government personnel contacting White. (Doc. 1-1 at 3 10.) 4 Based on these events, White filed this suit against New York City and the New 5 York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner. White seeks $500 million in damages. (Doc. 6 1 at 4.) Based on the allegations in the complaint, the court does not have personal 7 jurisdiction over either defendant and the complaint must be dismissed. 8 “Where an in forma pauperis Complaint lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact 9 pertaining to personal jurisdiction, it must be dismissed sua sponte as frivolous.” Jones v. 10 Riker’s Island Dep’t of Correction, New York, No. 1:25-CV-00261-DCN, 2025 WL 11 2412091, at *1 (D. Idaho Aug. 20, 2025) (simplified). When there is “no applicable federal 12 statute [that] confers personal jurisdiction upon” this court, the court must look to Arizona 13 law. Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739, 750 (9th Cir. 2025). Under Arizona law, the 14 court has “personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant” if that defendant has “certain 15 minimum contacts with [Arizona] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 16 traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. (simplified); Harrington v. 17 Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 142 F.4th 678, 686 (9th Cir. 2025) (“The Arizona 18 long-arm statute is co-extensive with the limits of federal due process under the Fourteenth 19 Amendment.”) (simplified). 20 “There are two forms of personal jurisdiction that a forum state may exercise over 21 a nonresident defendant—general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction.” Boschetto v. 22 Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008). There are no factual allegations showing 23 defendants have “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts with Arizona such that 24 general jurisdiction might exist. Briskin, 135 F.4th at 750. As for specific jurisdiction, the 25 court must apply a three-part test when determining if it exists: 26 (1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or 27 resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the 28 forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; l (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and 3 substantial justice, i.e. 1t must be reasonable. 4 Id. at 750-51. White provides no allegations establishing any of these requirements. ° The complaint alleges White and Montgomery were both in New York City when 6 Montgomery died. And White was still in New York City when officials allegedly failed to contact him regarding Montgomery’s death. Neither New York City nor the Office of 8 the Medical Examiner is alleged to have directed any actions towards any individual in 9 Arizona. White’s claims do not arise out of any Arizona-based activities. And it would not 10 be reasonable to require either New York City or the Office of Chief Medical Examiner to defend claims in Arizona. 12 Given the facts alleged in the complaint, White would not be able to allege any 13 additional facts making personal jurisdiction possible. See United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend can be denied based on IS futility). 6 IT IS ORDERED the Application (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Redact (Doc. 5) is GRANTED and 18 the Motion to Redact (Doc. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court shall place 19 under seal the document filed at Doc. 1-2. This order shall not be sealed. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED a1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case. 22 Dated this 12th day of February, 2026. 23

25 CU ptoa M. CA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham United States District Judge 27 28

_3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Davon Chadewick White v. City of New York, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davon-chadewick-white-v-city-of-new-york-et-al-azd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack