Bryce Franklin and Zachary Babitz v. Keefe Commissary Network LLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico addresses Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, motion to strike, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss in a dispute concerning alleged overcharges for commissary items at a correctional facility. The court concludes that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction likely is not met, but denies the motion to remand without prejudice because only one pro se plaintiff signed it. The court also denies the other motions without prejudice and directs both plaintiffs to file a jointly signed amended motion to remand within thirty days.

Holdings

1. The record did not establish that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Franklin's sworn clarification of the damages and injunctive relief sought was relevant because the complaint's request for relief was ambiguous, and the plaintiffs could not obtain broad injunctive relief affecting other facilities or nonparties.
2. The complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely by referencing cruel and unusual punishment because the claim was expressly asserted under Article II of the New Mexico Constitution.
3. A non-attorney pro se plaintiff may not represent another pro se party or seek relief on that party's behalf. Because only Franklin signed the motion to remand, the court denied it without prejudice and permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended motion signed by both plaintiffs.
4. The court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, Franklin's motion to remand, and Franklin's motion to strike without prejudice, and ordered plaintiffs to file an amended motion to remand signed under oath by both plaintiffs within thirty days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant established that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction.
2. Whether the complaint presented a federal question when its cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim was expressly pleaded under the New Mexico Constitution.
3. Whether a non-attorney pro se plaintiff could file a motion to remand or clarify claims on behalf of a co-plaintiff.
4. Whether the pending motions should be resolved when the motion to remand was signed only by Plaintiff Franklin.

Disposition

other