Lakeisha Shante Williams v. Jarvis Garys, et al.

Summary

The court grants the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but reviews the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). It concludes that the allegations concerning events from 2006 and 2007 do not establish federal-question, federal-defendant, or diversity jurisdiction and appear likely time-barred. The action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. The application to proceed in forma pauperis was due to be granted because Williams submitted an affidavit substantiating her inability to pay the required filing fee.
2. The complaint did not establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it did not assert a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and no federal claim was apparent from the allegations.
3. The complaint did not establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 because it did not show that Officer Matthews or any other defendant was an employee or officer of the United States government.
4. The complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Williams did not allege an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 or citizenship diverse from that of the defendants.
5. Granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis did not prevent dismissal because the court was required to review the complaint and dismiss an action that was frivolous or malicious or failed to state a claim, and this action lacked a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Williams established subject-matter jurisdiction under the federal-question, United States-party, or diversity-jurisdiction statutes.
2. Whether the court could dismiss the complaint after granting Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
3. Whether the allegations appeared to be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Disposition

dismissed