Garber v. Burke, 1:22-cv-02967

Pro se plaintiff Alexa Rose Garber (New York) sued defendant Alison Taylor Burke (New York), alleging harassment, cyberharassment, defamation, invasion of privacy, illegal surveillance/stalking, identity/information theft, libel/slander, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Garber sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Garber was granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status. The Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
The complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction but pleaded no federal statute or facts establishing a federal-law claim.
Both parties are alleged New York residents and Garber did not plausibly allege the $75,000 amount-in-controversy required for diversity jurisdiction.
The Court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, denied leave to amend as futile, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith (denying IFP for appeal).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal-question jurisdiction	Garber invoked federal jurisdiction generally for alleged civil and criminal wrongdoing	No specific federal-law basis pleaded	Dismissed — complaint does not present a federal-law cause of action or require resolution of substantial federal question
Diversity jurisdiction	Plaintiff sought relief in federal court (implicitly)	Both parties are New York citizens; amount in controversy not plausibly alleged	Dismissed — no complete diversity and no plausible allegation of > $75,000
Leave to amend	Garber is pro se and might cure defects if allowed	Jurisdictional defects are structural and cannot be cured by amendment	Denied — amendment would be futile
IFP status for appeal	Granted IFP for filing	Court may deny IFP for appeal if appeal is not in good faith	Denied for appeal — court certifies appeal would not be taken in good faith

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (separating legal conclusions from factual allegations)
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se pleadings construed liberally but still must meet Rule 8)
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (special solicitude for pro se litigants in pleading review)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (courts must police subject-matter jurisdiction on their own initiative)
Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730 (2d Cir. 2007) (defining when a case arises under federal law)
Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182 (2d Cir. 1996) (mere invocation of federal jurisdiction is insufficient)
Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must allege to a reasonable probability that amount in controversy exceeds statutory threshold)
Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2011) (leave to amend need not be granted when amendment would be futile)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for good-faith appeal under IFP)