Washington v. Paris Production Berlin

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 28, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-05922
StatusUnknown

This text of Washington v. Paris Production Berlin (Washington v. Paris Production Berlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Washington v. Paris Production Berlin, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHARMEEN DENISE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-5922 (LTS) PARIS PRODUCTION BERLIN; ORDER TO AMEND GEORGINA P., VIDEO PRODUCER; DJ KAY SLAY, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction and alleging that Defendants violated her rights. By order dated August 7, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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 of the claims raised. 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.

Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings her claims using the court general complaint form. She checks the box on the form to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction and, in response to the question on the form asking which of her federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated, Plaintiff writes, “Child labor law and international vs. federal law, child pornography law.” (ECF 1, at 2.)1 She states that her claims arose on 28th Street between 8th and 9th Avenue, presumably in Manhattan, from 2008 through the current time.

1 Plaintiff writes using nonstandard capitalization. For readability, the Court uses standard capitalization when quoting from the complaint. All other grammar, spelling, and punctuation are as in the original unless otherwise indicated. Plaintiff alleges, “I was harrassed as an uneducated fif[t]een year old while playing basketball at the basketball court downstairs in the park across the street from my sickly Grandmother Ms. Shelia A. Washington[’s] apartment 1830 First Avenue Apt. 5J, New York, N.Y., 10128 and asked to be in a music video for a loose 100$ without being informed it was a international video. [A]nd my legal parent did not sign or give permission for me to be in the Hip-Hop RAP Video. And they were at work in New York State. [T]he Shells gas station has the servalence video. For the music video “Blockstars” [by] Ray J + DJ Kay Slay.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff describes her injuries as “rape, harrassment & illegal pornography by Mercades Downes & Georgina P.” (Id. at 6.) In the section of the complaint form to state the relief she seeks, Plaintiff writes, “I did not want to be in the music video and did not get percentage for private video clip/scene.” (Id.) Plaintiff has recently filed a number of other pro se actions in this court, in several of which the court has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims. See Washington v. Lyndsay, ECF 1:23-CV-5888, 5 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2023) (directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint showing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction of her claims); Washington v. Tocco, ECF 1:23-CV-5561, 1 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2023) (directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint showing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction of her claims); Washington v. Chong, ECF 1:23-CV-1936, 10 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2023) (dismissing complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); see also Washington v. Abedin, ECF 1:23-CV-5887, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 11, 2023); Washington v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Inc., ECF 1:23-CV-5819, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 6, 2023); Washington v. New York Police Dep’t, ECF 1:23-CV-5820, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 6, 2023). DISCUSSION A. Subject matter jurisdiction 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, 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 the sum or value of $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.’” United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. 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., 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.

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

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)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Palazzo v. Corio
232 F.3d 38 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Washington v. Paris Production Berlin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-paris-production-berlin-nysd-2023.