Poling et al v. Two Rivers Mobile Home Coop, Board Members

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Poling, et al.

Vv. Civ. No. 24-cv-97-JL

Two Rivers Mobile Home Coop.,
Board Members

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Self-represented plaintiffs Arley J. Poling, Michael A.
Davis and Vickie Parent, proceeding in forma pauperis, have
filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) naming the Two Rivers Mobile Home
Coop,! and its past and present board members as defendants. The
complaint is before the court for preliminary review pursuant to
LR 4.3(d) (2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2).

Preliminary Review Standard

The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like the one in this case, that are filed in forma
pauperis. See LR 4.3(d). The magistrate judge may recommend to
the district judge that one or more claims be dismissed 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 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e) (2); LR 4.3(d). In conducting its preliminary review,

the court construes pro se complaints liberally. See Erickson

1 The court assumes “Coop” is shorthand for “Cooperative,”
but uses the plaintiffs’ naming for clarity.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The complaint
must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted). The court treats as true all
well-pleaded factual allegations, and construes reasonable
inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Ocasio-Hernández v.
Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
Factual Background
The plaintiffs allege that they are being harassed and are
facing eviction, from which they seek relief in this court. The
complaint does not detail the nature of the alleged harassment,
other than the landlord “keeps changing the rules” and that the
landlord “does not like” one of the plaintiffs.
Legal Analysis
A. 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
jurisdiction. Calderón–Serra v. Wilmington Trust Co., 715 F.3d
14, 17 (1st Cir. 2013).
To invoke this court's subject matter jurisdiction,
plaintiffs must allege either that their claims raise a federal
Case 1:24-cv-00097-JL-AJ Document 6 Filed 04/16/24 Page 2 of 5

3
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).
The complaint in this case seems to assert only a state-law
landlord-tenant claim. Thus, the only basis upon which the court
could exercise subject matter jurisdiction is through diversity.
To establish diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiffs 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 the plaintiffs and defendants -- their
landlord -- are New Hampshire citizens. In addition, the
complaint lacks any facts to suggest that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. As these allegations fail to
Case 1:24-cv-00097-JL-AJ Document 6 Filed 04/16/24 Page 3 of 5

4
satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction, the court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this case should be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to
the plaintiffs’ ability to re-file the 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).
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 16, 2024
cc: Arley J. Poling, pro se
Michael A. Davis, pro se
Vickie Parent, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00097-JL-AJ Document 6 Filed 04/16/24 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:24-cv-00097-JL-AJ Document6 Filed 04/16/24 Page5of5