Warren v. D.S.S. of N.Y.
1:17-cv-00419
E.D.N.YApr 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert L. Warren, proceeding pro se, sued NYC Department of Social Services (DSS/HRA) and DSS attorney Melissa Wagner claiming they filed a false Medicaid claim and collected ~$300,000 from his late mother Martha Mayes’s estate.
- Exhibits indicate Mayes received a ~$1.2 million private settlement and had prior Medicaid benefits that gave rise to a DSS lien; DSS/Wagner filed a claim in New York Surrogate’s Court.
- Warren seeks $50 million for alleged “estate fraud” but pleads only fraud-related allegations and references federal Medicaid regulations.
- Court granted in forma pauperis status for purposes of the order and reviewed the amended complaint under Rule 12/§1915 standards.
- Court found no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction (no federal-question cause pleaded; no complete diversity).
- Court also noted procedural defects: a non‑attorney cannot represent an estate unless he is the sole beneficiary with no creditors, and fraud claims must satisfy Rule 9(b) particularity; plaintiffs must sue the City of New York rather than the agency in many circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | Warren asserts federal-question jurisdiction based on federal Medicaid law references | Defendants implicitly rely on lack of federal claim and that this is state-law fraud/estate matter | No federal jurisdiction: complaint alleges only fraud, not a federal cause; no diversity exists |
| Standing/ability to represent estate | Warren sues on behalf of his late mother’s estate pro se | DSS contends pro se non-attorney cannot represent an estate with potential creditors/beneficiaries | Warren has not shown he is sole beneficiary with no creditors; may not litigate estate claims pro se |
| Proper defendant/formal party pleading | Warren sued DSS/HRA and Wagner directly | NYC law requires certain suits be brought in name of City; agency suits improper | Claims against agency should be pled against City where required; current pleading defective |
| Sufficiency of fraud pleading | Warren alleges false Medicaid claim and collection but gives few specifics | Fraud claims require Rule 9(b) particularity (who, what, when, where, why) | Complaint fails to plead fraud with required particularity; must allege specifics in amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir.) (pro se complaints read with special solicitude)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must include factual content allowing reasonable inference of liability)
- Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137 (2d Cir.) (laypersons may not represent others)
- Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15 (2d Cir.) (executor/administrator may proceed pro se only if sole beneficiary and no creditors)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (federal-question jurisdiction requires substantial federal issue)
- New York ex rel. Jacobson v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank, 824 F.3d 308 (2d Cir.) (federal-question jurisdiction principles)