The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge
Presently pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Desi Gause's Complaint, accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court grants Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but dismisses the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in New York, claims that his mother, Della Gause, purchased property in Wyandanch, New York, and that he and his family have lived there since 1998. (Compl. 1). Plaintiff identifies Defendant Commercial Mutual Insurance Company as located in Kingston, New York, and alleges that his mother was required to purchase two kinds of property insurance ("PMI, and Home Owners") when buying the property in Wyandanch. (Compl. 1). It appears from the Complaint that at some point between 1998 and this lawsuit, Della Gause passed away. Plaintiff alleges that he is the "heir of the deceased (Della Gause) who is my mother." (Compl. 1).
Plaintiff alleges that Chase Bank illegally collected monthly payments from the family after Della Gause passed away, began an "illegal foreclosure process," that the "private mortgage insurance protects the creditor and the debtor in case of an emergency such as this one," and that Defendants "failed to mitigate the proper procedures pertaining to death, insurance and the estate of the deceased and family . . ." (Compl. 2). Plaintiff also appears to allege that Chase Bank continued to collect from the deceased's family "unlawfully after wrongful death" and "assassinated my deceased mother's good name." (Compl. 2).
Plaintiff appears to allege that Commercial Mutual Insurance received premiums from Chase and did not compensate the estate of Della Gause for a home invasion that took place in 2004, in which "three babies were tied up and duck taped . . ." (Compl. 2). Plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, disclosure of closing contracts, police reports, and sums ranging in the amounts of $250,000 to $1,000,000.00 for wrongful foreclosure, slander, and damages for his children's suffering during the 2004 home invasion. (Compl. 3).
Courts are obliged to construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally. Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004). If a liberal reading of the complaint "gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated," courts must grant leave to amend the complaint. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).
II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Notwithstanding the liberal pleading standard afforded pro se litigants, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may not preside over cases if they lack subject matter jurisdiction. Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir. 2000). Unlike lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time by a party or by the Court sua sponte. Id. If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the action must be dismissed." Id. at 700-01; Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
The basic statutory grants of subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed. 2d 1097 (2006). Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction and Section 1332 provides jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Id. Here, even construed liberally, Plaintiff fails to plead either federal subject matter or diversity jurisdiction.*fn1
Thus, Plaintiff's claim must be ...