Voss v. United States

Second Circuit

Voss v. United States

360 F. App'x 239

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 2010

Docket08-5488-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 360 F. App'x 239 (Voss v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Voss v. United States, 360 F. App'x 239 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant John J. Voss, Jr., pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case, as well as the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s rulings on subject matter jurisdiction de novo, see S.E.C. v. Berger, 322 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir.2003), bearing in mind that a pro se plaintiffs complaint should be liberally construed to raise the strongest argument that it suggests, see Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir.1996). Under the Federal Rules, if a court “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); accord Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free School Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d Cir.2008)(“If a court perceives at any state of the proceedings that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, then it must take proper notice of the defect by dismissing the action.”).

Here, the district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Voss’s complaint, and we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons as articulated by that court. Moreover, we have considered Voss’s remaining claims of error and determined them to be without merit; accordingly, there is no basis on which to challenge the judgment of the district court.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant John J. Voss, Jr., pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case, as well as the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s rulings on subject matter jurisdiction de novo, see S.E.C. v. Berger, 322 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir.2003), bearing in mind that a pro se plaintiffs complaint should be liberally construed to raise the strongest argument that it suggests, see Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir.1996). Under the Federal Rules, if a court “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); accord Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free School Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d Cir.2008)(“If a court perceives at any state of the proceedings that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, then it must take proper notice of the defect by dismissing the action.”).

Here, the district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Voss’s complaint, and we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons as articulated by that court. Moreover, we have considered Voss’s remaining claims of error and determined them to be without merit; accordingly, there is no basis on which to challenge the judgment of the district court.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 F. App'x 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/voss-v-united-states-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack