UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TAMICKO D. MURRAY MCIVER, Plaintiff, 21-CV-9128 (LLS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOUNT VERNON CMV POLICE DEPT., et al., Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question and diversity jurisdiction,

, 1332. By order dated January 4, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co.,

(2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills,

(2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). BACKGROUND This action arises out of a hit-and-run accident that occurred in Mount Vernon, New York. Plaintiff, who resides in Mount Vernon and is a citizen of New York, alleges that on May 19, 2020, she “was hit with the passenger side mirror [and] several times with the front of the car trying to hold him there.” (ECF 2, at 6.) She brings claims against the individual who drove “the

van that hit me and left the s[cene],” two unidentified witnesses, the Mount Vernon Police Department (MVPD), a detective, and an emergency medical technician (EMT). Plaintiff indicates that she has “pictures [and] a video” (id. at 2), and that she would like “to be in court on this one,” (id. at 5). DISCUSSION The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally in

and 1332. Under these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or when plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. “‘[I]t is common ground that in our federal system of limited jurisdiction any party or the court sua

sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, may raise the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.’” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Prop. Meriden Square, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Manway Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Hartford,

(2d Cir. 1983)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,

(1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative . . . .”). To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

. A case arises under federal law if the complaint “establishes 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.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain,

, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh,

(2006)). Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund,

(2d Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting that Defendants violated a federal law or Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rather, her claims arise under state law, and this Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over such claims. Plaintiff also does not allege facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. To establish jurisdiction under

, a plaintiff must first allege that the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states. Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht,

(1998). In addition, the plaintiff must allege to a “reasonable probability” that the claim is in excess of the sum or value of $75,000.00, the statutory jurisdictional amount. See

(a); Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc.,

, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff indicates in the complaint that both she and Defendants reside in New York, precluding complete diversity of citizenship. Because this Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Plaintiff's complaint, filed in forma pauperis under

(a)(1), 1s dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). SO ORDERED. Dated: March 16, 2021 New York, New York Louis L. Stanton U.S.D.J.