Furst v. 96 Myrtle Ave Apt 10
| Joel Furst |
| 96 Myrtle Ave Apt 10 |
| 3:2023cv00617 |
| May 12, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Maria E Garcia |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER denying without prejudice #7 motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on a court form that is not used in this district, a practice he has been cautioned is not appropriate insofar as it allows Plaintiff to avoid listing his substantial litigation history in this district. See, e.g., Recommended Ruling at 1-3, Furst v. Bernstein, No. 3:23-cv-00379-KAD (D. Conn. May 16, 2023) (Vatti, M.J.), recommendation adopted, No. 3:23-cv-00379-KAD (D. Conn. June 7, 2023); Recommended Ruling, Furst v. Dep't of Mental Health and Addictions, No. 3:19-cv-00634-JCH (D. Conn. May 17, 2019) (Merriam, M.J.), recommendation adopted, No. 3:19-cv-00634-JCH (D. Conn. June 11, 2019). Notwithstanding, had the form motion been properly completed, the Court would have been able to assess whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed without paying the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). But it was not. The only information contained in the motion is Plaintiff's income from gifts and social security ("ss 780 gifts 200 400") in the total amount of $1,380.00. Even though signed under penalty of perjury, the motion does not identify any expenses such as housing, transportation or utilities. It does not identify any debts or financial obligations nor assets of any kind. And despite not having any expenses but having income in the amount of $1,380 per month, Plaintiff indicates that he has "0" cash in a checking or savings account. While Plaintiff may well be entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, such a determination cannot be made on the present motion. See Adkins v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 338 (1948) (characterizing the section 1915 affidavit requirement as "protection of the public against a false or fraudulent invocation of the statute's benefits"). Plaintiff may submit a more accurate and robust motion to the Court of Appeals if he wishes to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 7/6/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
| Filing 11 NOTICE of USCA as to #9 Notice of Appeal filed by Joel Furst, USCA Case Number 23-927. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 10 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE RE: INDEX AND RECORD ON APPEAL re: #9 Notice of Appeal. The attached docket sheet is hereby certified as the entire Index/Record on Appeal in this matter and electronically sent to the Court of Appeals, with the exception of any manually filed documents as noted below. Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk. Documents manually filed not included in this transmission: none (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 8 Order Dismissing Case by Joel Furst. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER: Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only over matters in which a federal question is raised or there is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332. The Court is under an obligation to review every complaint and sua sponte raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction. Vera v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A., 946 F.3d 120, 135 (2d Cir. 2019). Diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a); see E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Accident & Cas. Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 925, 930 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[F]or diversity jurisdiction to be available, all of the adverse parties in a suit must be completely diverse with regard to citizenship."). Federal question jurisdiction exists where the action "aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 1331. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, "a suit 'arises under' federal law 'only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].'" Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (quoting Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)). Upon review of the Complaint, it is clear that the Court's diversity jurisdiction is not implicated, as both the Plaintiff and the Defendants are alleged to be citizens of Connecticut. Plaintiff brings this purported negligence action against his neighbors who reside at 96 Myrtle Ave in Stamford, Connecticut. Plaintiff resides at the same address, though in a different unit. Nor does Plaintiff allege any facts tending to show that the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2); Herrick Co. v. SCS Commc'ns, Inc., 251 F.3d 315, 322 (2d Cir. 2001). And although Plaintiff only invokes the Court's diversity jurisdiction, it is likewise clear that there is no federal question jurisdiction, as Plaintiff's claim arises out of the fact that his neighbors are "hateful, angry, [and] aways abusive." Compl. at 4, ECF No. #1 . If there is any cause of action to be discerned from the Complaint, it would be one that sounds in state tort law, which does not suffice to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See, e.g., Zelawska v. Lufthansa German Airlines, No. 13-CV-5114 (JS) (GRB), 2013 WL 6330672, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2013) (finding that federal question jurisdiction could not be invoked where the plaintiff's claim arose under state tort law); Bitinas v. Roback, No. 3:04-CV-576 (JBA), 2005 WL 327137, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 10, 2005) (finding that federal question jurisdiction could not be invoked where the "plaintiffs' complaint sound[ed] only in negligence"). Plaintiff cites no federal law, treaty, or constitutional provision in his Complaint and, even reading the pro se Complaint liberally, the Court cannot discern a non-frivolous federal claim by which the Court's federal question jurisdiction may be invoked. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 5/23/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Joel Furst. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 5/12/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 5
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 5/12/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 7/11/2023 Discovery due by 11/11/2023 Dispositive Motions due by 12/16/2023 Signed by Clerk on 5/14/202. (Fanelle, N.)
|
| Filing 3 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 5/12/2023.(Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER: We received your Complaint which has been assigned case number 23cv617. In order to proceed, the filing fee or a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis must be submitted to the Court by 6/11/2023 or the case will be subject to dismissal. Fee information and the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form may be found on the Court's website at ctd.uscourts.gov. Dismissal due by 6/11/2023 Signed by Clerk on 5/12/2023.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against 96 Myrtle Ave Apt 10, filed by Joel Furst. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Judge Kari A. Dooley and Judge Maria E. Garcia added. (Oliver, T.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Furst v. 96 Myrtle Ave Apt 10 | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Joel Furst | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: 96 Myrtle Ave Apt 10 | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
