Youngman v. Youngman et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Maria Youngman
v. 	Case No. 23-cv-356-LM
Gerald Youngman
Hodges Rental Co.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Maria Youngman, proceeding in forma
pauperis, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against Gerald
Youngman and Hodges Rental Company. 	The complaint is before the
court for preliminary review pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
Preliminary Review Standard
This court conducts a preliminary review of complaints
filed in forma pauperis. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	Claims may
be dismissed sua sponte, if, among other things, the court lacks
jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, or
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 	See id. 	In considering whether the complaint states a
claim, the court determines if, stripped of legal conclusions
and with all reasonable inferences construed in plaintiff’s
favor, the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief” upon which relief
can be granted. 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation omitted). 	In undertaking this review, the
court is mindful that pro se complaints must be construed
Case 1:23-cv-00356-LM Document 3 Filed 07/21/23 Page 1 of 4

2
liberally. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). 	This is “not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not
required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a claim.”
Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980).
Background
Ms. Youngman’s complaint is disorganized and difficult to
follow. 	It appears that Hodges Rental Co. is her landlord. The
complaint contains scattered references to maintenance and
security issues, and theft of personal property. 	Ms. Youngman’s
only requested relief is for restitution for the value of lost
property. 	It is not clear from the complaint why Gerald
Youngman is a defendant.
Even liberally construing the complaint, see Erickson, 551
U.S. at 94, the court cannot find that Ms. Youngman has stated
the minimum facts necessary for her case to proceed in this
court. 	In the first instance, as previously noted, there are no
factual allegations linking her assertions to Gerald Youngman.
More significantly, as explained below, this court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over Ms. Youngman’s claims.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
“‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’
possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and
statute.’” Gun v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (quoting
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). The plaintiff has the burden to establish the court's
Case 1:23-cv-00356-LM Document 3 Filed 07/21/23 Page 2 of 4

3
jurisdiction. Calderón–Serra v. Wilmington Trust Co., 715 F.3d
14, 17 (1st Cir. 2013).
To invoke this court's subject matter jurisdiction,
plaintiff must allege either that this action raises a federal
question, in that the cause of action arises under federal law,
or that this court has diversity jurisdiction over the matter.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and § 1332 (diversity).
To establish diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff must assert that
the parties are citizens of different states, see id. at §
1332(a)(1), and that the amount in controversy in this action
exceeds $75,000. See id. at § 1332(b).
Ms. Youngman’s complaint seems to assert only garden-
variety state law claims, involving landlord-tenant issues and
theft of personal property. 	Thus, the only basis upon which the
court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction is through
diversity. 	To establish diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff must
show that the parties are citizens of different states and that
the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332. “[D]iversity jurisdiction requires ‘complete diversity of
citizenship as between all plaintiffs and all defendants.’ This
means that diversity jurisdiction does not exist where any
plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”
Alvarez–Torres v. Ryder Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 582 F.3d 47, 53–54
(1st Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). 	Here, the face of the
complaint indicates that Ms. Youngman and both defendants are
Case 1:23-cv-00356-LM Document 3 Filed 07/21/23 Page 3 of 4

4
New Hampshire citizens. 	These allegations fail to satisfy the
requirement of diversity jurisdiction.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this case should be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to
Ms. Youngman’s ability to re-file her lawsuit in state court.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to
this Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the
district court. 	See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co.,
617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Any issues not preserved by
such objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. 	Failure to
file any objections within the specified time waives the right
to appeal the district court's Order. 	See Santos-Santos v.
Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
_____________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
July 21, 2023
cc: 	Marie Youngman, pro se
Case 1:23-cv-00356-LM Document 3 Filed 07/21/23 Page 4 of 4