UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VALERIE SHEPHERD, Plaintiff, -against- 22-CV-1319 (LTS) NEW YORK KNICK MARK JACKSON; ORDER OF DISMISSAL JAMES DOLAN, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction,

. By order dated March 3, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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 of the claims raised. 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). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases,

(citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly,

. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief.

BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn from the complaint: I been to police station on March 25, 2021 and could not take out complaint on Mark Jackson the New York Knick. I lost my job at Amazon this second job he took since 2020 I had lost the job March 25, 2021. I did send FBI several letter in Washington DC. I have not heard from any of my letters. Jon Miller NBC Sports I did not hear from. I wrote a letter to Jon Miller on April 8, 2021. I wrote William F. Sweeny on April 12, 2021 FBI office in New York. I have not heard from anyone. I did write Chief of Police Terrence Monahan in New York. I have not heard from anyone. I wrote Terrance Monahan on March 29, 2021. I have not had any response to any of my letter in Washington DC. Mark Jackson been stopping me from getting the new job. He stop from getting over 100 jobs. I can name 50 company he stop from getting. I been trying to get Mark Jackson in court for since 2020 and 2021. He been stopping from getting my next job. I have not heard any response any of my letter I wrote from the FBI and Jon Miller or Police. (ECF 2, at 5) (cleaned up). Plaintiff provides New York, New York, addresses for Defendants Mark Jackson and James Dolan, specifically, Madison Square Garden. She alleges that her injuries include her “leg and foot” and that “[h]e been hurting me on the job. I been hurt my stomach sometimes.” (/d. at 6.) She seeks unspecified damages for “pain and suffering for my jobs and feet and leg pain.” (/d.) DISCUSSION A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 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 vy. CenterMark Prop. Meriden Square, Inc.,

, 301 (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., 526 US. 574, 583 (1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative ....”). As explained below, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not assert any claim of which the Court may exercise jurisdiction under its federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 1. Federal Question Jurisdiction To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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). Under a liberal construction afforded pro se plaintiffs, the Court understands Plaintiff to be concerned about a termination of employment and struggles to find re-employment; however, this does not raise a federal question. Therefore, based on the allegations in the complaint, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of any claims Plaintiff may be asserting. 2. Diversity Jurisdiction Plaintiff 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). Although it is unclear whether Plaintiff and Defendants are of diverse citizenship, it is clear that her claims do not exceed the statutory amount of $75,000. The Court therefore does not have diversity jurisdiction of any claim Plaintiff may be asserting. B. Leave to Amend Denied District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione,

(2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo,

(2d Cir. 1988).

Because it does not appear that an amendment could cure the defect in Plaintiff’s complaint, which is that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of any claim Plaintiff may be asserting, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in forma pauperis under

(a)(1), is dismissed

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: May 20, 2022 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge