Roman v. Cayo
| Louis Roman |
| Andre Cayo |
| 3:2023cv01457 |
| November 7, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| S Dave Vatti |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 3, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER granting #10 Motion by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing. Self-Represented Filers are Required to Comply with the Standard Electronic Filing Order Docketed at Case Opening. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/3/2024. (Hagemann, Emma)
|
| Filing 11 MOTION to Reopen Case, by Louis Roman. Responses due by 1/19/2024. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 10 MOTION by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing, by Louis Roman. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ECF Nos. 7-8, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and must therefore dismiss this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (providing that a federal district court must dismiss an action if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction); Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that a federal court has "an independent obligation to consider the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte"). Specifically, neither of the two possible bases for a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction are present here. To the extent Plaintiff claims the action arises on the basis of the Court's diversity jurisdiction, such exercise of jurisdiction would not be proper here because both Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of Connecticut. 28 U.S.C. 1332; ECF No. 8 at 1. Although Plaintiff admits he is a citizen of Connecticut, to the extent he suggests that his status as an enrolled member of the Winnemucca tribe in Nevada makes him a citizen of Nevada for diversity jurisdiction purposes, he is incorrect. Rather, "a Native American is treated as any other citizen for jurisdiction purposes," Larson v. Martin, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1086 (D.N.D. 2005), and is therefore a citizen of the state in which he resides, accord Ward v. Mortimer, No. 10-CV-4154 (JS) (WDW), 2010 WL 3761906, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); 13E Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Section 3622 (3d ed. 2023). Thus, Plaintiff is a citizen of Connecticut. As Defendant is also a citizen of Connecticut, there is no complete diversity, and thus no diversity jurisdiction.Plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause does not squarely address the Court's federal question jurisdiction. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, "federal question jurisdiction exists only if plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based on federal law." Romano v. Kazacos, 609 F.3d 512, 518 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009)) (quotation marks omitted). Instead of explaining how his complaint states a federal claim on its face, Plaintiff instead discusses allegations outside of his complaint that Defendant has engaged in some sort of conspiracy with the Connecticut state courts to harass Plaintiff. E.g., ECF No. 8 at 2. The Court will not consider Plaintiff's allegations in his notice insofar as they stray outside of his complaint. Because Plaintiff's complaint does not state a federal question on its face, Plaintiff's complaint does not satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule, and Plaintiff cannot claim federal question jurisdiction.For these reasons, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's claim without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/29/2023. (Parfenoff, Ivan)
|
| Filing 8 Louis Roman's Response to 7 Order, by Louis Roman, filed by Louis Roman. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that, 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). In order for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, either (1) the plaintiff must set forth a colorable claim arising under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute, thus invoking this Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331; or (2) there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 under 28 U.S.C. 1332. See DaSilva v. Kinsho Int'l Corp., 229 F.3d 358, 363 (2d Cir. 2000) (identifying the two categories of subject matter jurisdiction). Here, there is no diversity, as both Plaintiff and Defendant are alleged to be citizens of Connecticut. Plaintiff cites to various federal criminal statutes as the basis for his claims, but federal criminal statutes do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction because they do not provide private causes of action. See Sheehy v. Brown, 335 F. Appx 102, 104 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order). Accordingly, no later than November 27, 2023, Plaintiff shall respond to this order explaining why he believes this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/9/2023. (Parfenoff, Ivan)
|
| Set deadline: Response to Dkt. 7 Order due by 11-27-2023. (Shafer, J.) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES: Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of Dkt. 2 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #1 Complaint, #4 Electronic Filing Order, and #5 Standing Protective Order. Signed by Clerk on 11-8-2023. (Shafer, J.) |
|
Filing 5
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11-7-2023. (Shafer, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11-7-2023. (Shafer, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: amended pleadings due by 1-6-2024, discovery due by 5-8-2024, and dispositive motions due by 6-12-2024. Signed by Clerk on 11-7-2023. (Shafer, J.)
|
| Filing 2 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 11/7/2023. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Andre Cayo, filed by Louis Roman. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing fee received from Louis Roman: $ 402.00, receipt number TBD (Oliver, T.) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge S. Dave Vatti 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: Roman v. Cayo | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Louis Roman | |
| 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: Andre Cayo | |
| 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.
