Tarrats et al v. Efrain Hernandez
| Rachel M. Tarrats and Milagros D. Hernandez |
| Efrain Hernandez |
| 1:2024cv01128 |
| February 6, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Rachel P Kovner |
| Cheryl L Pollak |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Rachel M. Tarrats. Postal Note: "Return To Sender. Insufficient Address. Unable To Forward." (IH) |
| Filing 4 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Milagros D. Hernandez. Postal Note: "Return To Sender. Insufficient Address. Unable to Forward." (IH) |
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Pro se plaintiffs Rachel M. Tarrats and Milagros D. Hernandez bring this action alleging that defendant Efrain Hernandez harassed them on multiple occasions. See Compl. 5 (Dkt. #1). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs #2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, but plaintiffs are directed to show cause in writing by 4/3/2024 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal courts may only decide lawsuits over which they have subject-matter jurisdiction. It is well-settled that the party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Platinum-Montaur Life Scis., LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 943 F.3d 613, 616 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Further, federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press. Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). Here, plaintiffs seek to invoke only the Court's federal question jurisdiction, Compl. 4, which requires either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law, Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006) (citations omitted). Because plaintiffs are pro se, the Court construes their complaint liberally and holds it to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted). It does not appear that federal question jurisdiction exists here. Plaintiffs handwritten pleading is difficult to read, but plaintiffs seem to allege defendant has throw[n] out and broken their property and tried to hold [them] in the house and not let [them] leave to do the errands. Compl. 5. Plaintiffs attach unmarked exhibits consisting of a power of attorney form signed by Efrain Hernandez on April 24, 2014, an incident information slip from the 90th Police Precinct dated January 11, 2024, and several domestic incident reports from January and February 2024. Id. at 7-17. Plaintiffs do not state what relief they seek. Id. at 6. Based on plaintiffs alleged facts and attached documents, there appears to be no substantial question of federal law, Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc, 547 U.S. at 690, because claims of domestic harassment and abuse generally arise under state law. Accordingly, plaintiffs shall show cause by 4/3/2024 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond will likely result in the dismissal of this action. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, so in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 3/5/2024. (NNW)
|
| Filing 3 Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (CV) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Milagros D. Hernandez, Rachel M. Tarrats. (Attachments: #1 IFP- Milagros D Hernandez) (CV) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Efrain Hernandez, filed by Rachel M. Tarrats, Milagros D. Hernandez. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (CV) |
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 New York Eastern 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
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.
