Youngman et al v. C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Maria Youngman
Hodges Apartment Complex
v. Civ. No. 23-cv-471-LM-AJ
K.C.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Maria Youngman, proceeding in forma
pauperis, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1), naming herself and
the Hodges Apartment Complex as plaintiffs and a neighbor,
“K.C,” as a defendant. 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
Case 1:23-cv-00471-LM-AJ Document 4 Filed 11/15/23 Page 1 of 5

2
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
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).
Discussion
Ms. Youngman’s complaint contains little information.
Based on her filings in a different case in this court, it
appears that an entity named “Hodges Rental Co.” is her
landlord, and that she appears to be bringing suit on its behalf
in this case. See Youngman v. Youngman, et al., No. 23-cv-356-
LM (D.N.H. filed July 17, 2023; dismissed Aug. 22, 2023). As a
pro se plaintiff, however, Ms. Youngman cannot represent another
person or entity. Nor can a corporation represent itself. In
general, a party must appear and sign pleadings filed in this
court personally, or that party may appear through counsel
admitted to practice here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; LR 83.6(b).
Therefore, “Hodges Apartment Complex” cannot be a named
plaintiff in this case at this time. Nevertheless, in an
Case 1:23-cv-00471-LM-AJ Document 4 Filed 11/15/23 Page 2 of 5

3
abundance of caution owing to Ms. Youngman’s pro se status, the
court will also consider the possibility that she intended to
name the Hodges entity as a defendant.
The complaint contains non-specific allegations of “theft
of personal property,” “mutilation of skin,” and assault.
Liberally construing the complaint, see Erickson, 551 U.S. at
94, it appears that Ms. Youngman has sufficiently alleged that
an individual committed several tortious acts against her. But
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
jurisdiction. Calderón–Serra v. Wilmington Trust Co., 715 F.3d
14, 17 (1st Cir. 2013).
To invoke this court's subject matter jurisdiction, a
plaintiff must allege either that her claims raise 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
Case 1:23-cv-00471-LM-AJ Document 4 Filed 11/15/23 Page 3 of 5

4
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, such as assault 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 – her
landlord and her neighbor -- are 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.
Case 1:23-cv-00471-LM-AJ Document 4 Filed 11/15/23 Page 4 of 5

5
Should the district judge approve this recommendation,
plaintiff’s motion for order and partial theft (Doc. No. 3)
should be denied as moot.
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
November 15, 2023
cc: Marie Youngman, pro se
Case 1:23-cv-00471-LM-AJ Document 4 Filed 11/15/23 Page 5 of 5