United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Albertha Wray, proceeding pro se, brings this action
against her former employer, Defendant Health & Hospital
Corporation, alleging that she was removed from her
employment without cause. (Compl. (Dkt. 2).) Plaintiff filed
a request to proceed in forma pauperis
("IFP"). The court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to
appear IFP for purposes of this Order. However, for the
following reasons, the court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
commenced this action on May 19, 2017, in the Southern
District of New York. (Compl.) Plaintiff alleges that her
employment with Defendant was terminated on December 19,
2011, following an unsatisfactory evaluation. (Id.
at 5.) Plaintiff asserts that she worked for Defendant for
seven years prior to her dismissal and that her performance
during that period was satisfactory. (Id.) She also
states that she was an "active union member of... [the]
Communications Workers Association]." (Id.)
According to Plaintiff, she has been unable to obtain other
employment since Defendant terminated her, which she asserts
resulted from a "block put against her name."
(Id.) Plaintiff avers that her removal and
subsequent unemployment have "caused  economic
hardship" and that her "situation is
deteriorating." Qd at 5-6.)
Complaint, Plaintiff also describes an apparently separate
incident, claiming that that she was "brought to the
hospital against [her] will" in August 2015 and January
2016 and administered painkillers and blood tliinning drugs.
(Id. at 6.) It is unclear whether Plaintiffs
allusion to the "hospital" refers to Defendant or
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court may waive the filing
fees normally required of a party upon finding a plaintiff
indigent. However, that statute also requires the court to
dismiss the case if, on review, it determines that the
complaint is "frivolous or malicious, " "fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted, " or
"seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from relief." Id. §
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint
must contain a "short and plain" statement of the
basis for the court's jurisdiction and the claim, showing
the pleading party's entitlement to relief, as well as a
demand for the type of relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
Under this requirement, a complaint must contain "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
At the pleadings stage of the proceeding, a court must assume
the truth of "all nonconclusory factual
allegations" contained in the complaint. Kiobel v.
Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.. 621 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir.
2010) (citing IqbaL 556 U.S.at 677).
document filed prose is to be liberally construed,
and a prose complaint, however inartfully pleaded,
must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v.
Pardus. 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). Submissions by prose
litigants must be "interpreted to raise the strongest
arguments that they suggest." Trestman v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons. 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
addition to the considerations listed under the IFP statute,
if the court "determines at any time that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, [it] must dismiss the
action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction and may not preside over cases
if they lack subject matter jurisdiction. Lvndonville
Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier. 211 F.3d 697,
700-01 (2d Cir. 2000). The primary statutory grants for
federal subject matter jurisdiction are those contained in 28
U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for "federal
question" jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which
provides for jurisdiction based on "diversity of
citizenship." A plaintiff properly invokes federal
question jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim
"arising under" the Constitution or laws of the
United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. She properly invokes
diversity jurisdiction when she presents a claim between
parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required
jurisdictional amount, currently $75, 000. See
Id. § 1332(a); Arbaugh v. Y & H
Corp.. 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (citing Bell v.
Hood. 327 U.S. 678, 681-85 (1946)).