Lacey v. Sure Shot Books Publishers LLC

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 28, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-02406·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN JAY LACEY, Plaintiff, 24-CV-2406 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL SURE SHOT BOOKS PUBLISHERS, LLC, WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at the Indiana State Reformatory in Pendleton, Indiana, brings this action, pro se, alleging that Defendant, an entity located in Nyack, New York, violated provisions of the New York Penal Law. By order dated April 25, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the complaint, with 30 days’ leave to replead. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when 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

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee, even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 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). BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn from the complaint. At an unspecified time, Plaintiff “placed several purchase orders” with Defendant for books, and for subscriptions to magazines

and newspapers. (ECF 1 at 1-2.) Even after “several weeks had passed,” however, Plaintiff did not receive any issues of the Poughkeepsie Journal newspaper or of the Poets and Writers magazine. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff made “several attempts” to notify Defendant “of issues of nondelivery,” but the problem was apparently not resolved. (Id.) In November 2023, Plaintiff placed another order with Defendant for a 2024 Product Catalog, and for subscriptions to Billboard magazine, the Poughkeepsie Journal, and to the New York Post. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff sent payment of $321.59, which was the cost he calculated from Defendant’s price list. (Id.) Plaintiff received only some of the issues of the Poughkeepsie Journal, and none of the other publications. In response to Plaintiff’s inquiry about his order, Defendant claimed that it never received an order from Plaintiff for the Product Catalog, and that

Plaintiff had sent insufficient payment for the New York Post. According to Plaintiff, Defendant “refused to honor the payment,” and “ignored” the subscriptions to Billboard and the Poughkeepsie Journal. (Id.) “To date,” Plaintiff has not received “further issues” of the Poughkeepsie Journal, nor any issues of Poets and Writers or of Billboard. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed petit larceny and attempted petit larceny, in violation of New York Penal Law § 155.25 and § 110/155.25, and he seeks $900 in compensatory damages. (Id. at 4.) DISCUSSION The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutes, a federal district court has jurisdiction only when a “federal question” is presented or when the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000. “‘[I]t is common ground that in our federal system of limited jurisdiction any party or the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, may raise the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.’” United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Prop. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Manway Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Hartford, 711 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1983)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); 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.”). To support 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)). Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (2d Cir. 1996). The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint regarding Defendant’s failure to send him the written materials that he had paid for do not implicate a claim under federal law. Thus, federal question jurisdiction is lacking. Plaintiff also does not allege facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction of this action that would enable the Court to hear state law claims.2 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). Generally, there is a rebuttable presumption that a prisoner retains his pre-incarceration state citizenship rather than acquiring a new state citizenship. See Housand v. Heiman, 594 F.2d 923, 925 n.5 (2d Cir.

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

Lacey v. Sure Shot Books Publishers LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Lacey v. Sure Shot Books Publishers LLC (Lacey v. Sure Shot Books Publishers LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Leeke v. Timmerman
454 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1982)
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)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Blumatte v. Quinn
521 F. Supp. 2d 308 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund
81 F.3d 1182 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)