MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-04637 (AMD) (RML) --------------------------------------------------------------- X
1
2
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his complaint liberally and evaluates it by "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Ceara v. Deacon, 916 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)), and interprets it to raise "the strongest arguments" that it suggests, Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015) (cleaned up); see also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that even after Twombly, the court "remain[s] obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally"). Nonetheless, a district court must dismiss an IFP action sua sponte "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal subject matter jurisdiction is available only when an action "aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States" (in other words, when a federal question is presented), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when the plaintiff and defendant are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. "[F]ailure of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable and may be raised at any time by a party or by the court sua sponte. If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the action must be dismissed." Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 700-01 (2d Cir. 2000).
DISCUSSION
The plaintiff alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over this action "because petitioner's spouse is currently living in New York," and the petitioner lives in Portland, Jamaica. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) Interpreting the complaint to raise "the strongest arguments" that it suggests, the plaintiff is alleging that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). However, "[t]he whole
3
subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states and not to the laws of the United States," Deem v. DiMella-Deem, 941 F.3d 618, 624 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)), and the domestic relations exception "divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees" in cases involving diversity jurisdiction, Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992). This Court therefore does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Nor is there federal question jurisdiction because the action arises under state, not federal, law.
28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court therefore has no subject matter jurisdiction over this divorce action.
While "it is within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend," Broidy Cap. Mgmt. LLC v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436, 447 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Kim v. Kimm, 884 F.3d 98, 105 (2d Cir. 2018)), leave to amend is not warranted when the "problem with [the plaintiff's] cause[] of action is substantive" and "better pleading will not cure it,"
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). As explained in this decision, the problem with the plaintiff's complaint is substantive because federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over divorce actions, so "[r]epleading would . . . be futile." Id. Accordingly, the Court does not grant the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
4
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment dismissing the action, close the action, mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, and note the mailing on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
___________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York September 2, 2025
s/Ann M. Donnelly