Sister Monie Ma’at Ra Bey & Brother Maurice Mosiris Ra Bey,1 Plaintiffs v. Malini Deodat; Omadat Deodat; Seth Rosenfield; Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Queens; Clifton Nembhard; Henry Dale; Eric Adams; and Kathy Hochul, Defendants MEMORANDUM & ORDER The plaintiffs in this case, Monie Ma’at Ra Bey and Maurice Mosiris Ra Bey, are parties to an eviction proceeding currently before the New York City Civil Court, County of Queens. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, at 8. They are now seeking — for the second time — to remove that action to this Court. Neither plaintiff paid the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §1914. Instead, they filed blank applications to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by documents titled “Affidavit of Fact in Lieu of In Forma Pauperis.” ECF Nos. 2, 3. Those documents provide no information about the plaintiffs’ assets or income, let along information sufficient to suggest, as required, that they are “unable to pay” filing fees “or give security therefore.” See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1). Therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied. See Deodat et al v. Richard et al, No. 22-CV-4650 (EK), ECF No. 10 (denying IFP status in removal attempt from the same eviction proceeding by the same parties).2 Additionally, it is apparent that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case for the same reasons it lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ prior removal action. The underlying state eviction proceeding presents no federal question. See Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. AT&T, 138 F.3d 479, 485 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Removal is proper only if the federal question appears plainly on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.”).3 “Wrongful eviction claims, whether for a temporary or final eviction, are state law claims over which this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Allied Manor Road LLC v. Berrios, No., 2017 WL 5558650, *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017) (collecting cases); see also Kheyn v. City of New York, No., 2010 WL 3034652, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2010) (collecting cases) (holding that “it is well settled that the landlord-tenant relationship is fundamentally a matter of state law”). The plaintiffs also have not asserted diversity of citizenship; indeed, all parties appear to reside in New York State. Thus, remand is required. See 28 U.S.C. §1447(c); Mignogna v. Sair Aviation, Inc., 937 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 1991). This action is therefore remanded to the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Queens. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to send a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of that court, to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiffs, and to close the case. Given that this is the second baseless attempt at removal, the plaintiffs are advised that if they persist in filing frivolous or vexatious actions, the Court may enter an order barring the filing of any future in forma pauperis complaint without prior leave of the Court. 28 U.S.C. §1651; see, e.g., In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1261 (2d Cir. 1984) (“Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions.”); Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) (a district court has the authority to issue a filing injunction when “a plaintiff abuses the process of the Courts to harass and annoy others with meritless, frivolous, vexatious or repetitive…proceedings”). SO ORDERED. Dated: June 3, 2024
