Webley v. TJ Maxx et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER G. WEBLEY,
Plaintiff,
1:25-CV-1424
v. 	(MAD/DJS)
TJ MAXX and HEATHER TIFFANI,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
CHRISTOPHER G. WEBLEY
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Hudson, New York 12534
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
The Clerk has forwarded for review a civil complaint filed by Plaintiff. Dkt. No.
1, Compl. The filing fee in this action has not been paid, but Plaintiff has filed a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis. 	Dkt. No. 2. 	That Motion has been granted. 	The matter
has been referred to the undersigned for an initial review pursuant to L.R. 72.3.
Case 1:25-cv-01424-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 7

- 2 -
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT
The specific nature of the allegations lodged in the Complaint are unclear. 	The
briefly stated facts contend that Plaintiff was unlawfully detained with his wife while
shopping at a TJ Maxx store in Hudson, New York. Compl. at p. 4. He further claims to
have been physically attacked and subjected to slurs. Id. It appears, though it is not clear,
that these actions were taken by the mother of a store employee. Id.
II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis, “(2) . . . the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that
– . . . (B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1
In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court has a duty to show liberality toward pro
se litigants, see Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), and should
exercise “extreme caution . . . in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint
before the adverse party has been served and both parties (but particularly the plaintiff)
have had an opportunity to respond.” Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir.
1983) (internal citations omitted). 	Therefore, a court should not dismiss a complaint if
1 To determine whether an action is frivolous, a court must look to see whether the complaint “lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Case 1:25-cv-01424-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 7

- 3 -
the plaintiff has stated “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 	“A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Although a court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained
in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” 	Id. 	“Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts
do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id.
at 679 (quoting F ED . R. CIV . P. 8(a)(2)). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Thus, 	a 	pleading 	that 	only 	“tenders 	naked 	assertions 	devoid 	of 	further 	factual
enhancement” will not suffice. Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
It is well settled that a federal court, whether trial or appellate, is obligated to notice
on its own motion the basis for its jurisdiction. City of Kenosha, Wisconsin v. Bruno, 412
Case 1:25-cv-01424-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 7

- 4 -
U.S. 507, 512 (1973); see also Alliance of Am. Ins. v. Cuomo, 854 F.2d 591, 605 (2d Cir.
1988) (challenge to subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived); FED. R. CIV . P. 12(h)(3)
(court may raise basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte). When subject matter jurisdiction is
lacking, dismissal is mandatory. 	United States v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 226, 229 (1938);
Manway Const. Co. v. Hous. Auth. of City of Hartford, 711 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1983);
FED . R. CIV . P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). “Federal jurisdiction exists only when
a federal question is presented (28 U.S.C. § 1331), or where there is diversity of
citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (28 U.S.C. § 1332).” Boimah
v. New York State Workers’ Comp. Bd., 2018 WL 3850785, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 9, 2018),
report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 3850630 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2018)
(internal quotation omitted).
Having reviewed the Complaint, the Court recommends that it be dismissed
without prejudice based on lack of jurisdiction. 	The Complaint identifies the basis for
jurisdiction in this case to be federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Compl. at p. 3. The Complaint, however, identifies no federal statutory or constitutional
rights violations and that failure “renders the Complaint insufficient to confer jurisdiction
upon the Court.” Boimah v. New York State Workers’ Comp. Bd., 2018 WL 3850785, at
*2. 	Many of the stated causes of action, for example, negligence, false imprisonment,
and defamation “are traditional state common law questions that do not ‘arise under’
Case 1:25-cv-01424-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 7

- 5 -
federal law.” 	Gray v. Amazon, 2020 WL 8474763, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2020),
report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Gray on behalf of B.G. v. Amazon, 2021
WL 129051 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2021). Therefore, there is no basis for federal question
jurisdiction here.
There is also no basis for finding diversity jurisdiction. 	“Diversity jurisdiction
exists where the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.” 	Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, 772 F. Supp. 2d 453, 455 (W.D.N.Y. 2011).
“A case falls within the federal district court’s original diversity jurisdiction only if
diversity of citizenship among the parties is complete, i.e., only if there is no plaintiff and
no defendant who are citizens of the same State.” Wisconsin Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht,
524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998) (internal quotations omitted). The Complaint, however, alleges
that both Plaintiff and Defendants are residents of New York. Compl. at pp. 1-2. As a
result, there is also no diversity jurisdiction in this case. 	Blowers v. Novak, 2022 WL
195061, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2022), report and recommendation adopted sub nom.
Blowers v. Fulton Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t, 2022 WL 16630895 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2022).
As noted above, in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction “dismissal is
mandatory.” 	Praileau 	v. 	Fischer, 	930 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	383, 	394 	(N.D.N.Y. 	2013).
“Ordinarily, a court should not dismiss a complaint filed by a pro se litigant without
granting leave to amend at least once ‘when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any
indication that a valid claim might be stated.’” 	Bruce v. Tompkins Cnty. Dep’t of Soc.
Case 1:25-cv-01424-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 7

- 6 -
Servs. ex rel. Kephart, 2015 WL 151029, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2015) (quoting Branum
v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1991)). As such, the Court recommends that
Plaintiff be given the opportunity to amend the Complaint to properly assert a basis for
federal question jurisdiction here.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED with leave to
amend; and it is
ORDERED, 	that 	the 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	serve 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Report-
Recommendation and Order upon the parties to this action.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14)2 days within
which to file written objections to the foregoing report. 	Such objections shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. 	Roldan v.
Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.,
2 If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order by mail, three additional days will be added to the
fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the order was mailed to you to serve and
file objections. F ED. R. CIV. P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
FED. R. C IV. P. 6(a)(1)(C).
Case 1:25-cv-01424-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 6 of 7

- 7 -
892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED . R. CIV . P. 72 & 6(a).
Dated: November 10, 2025
Albany, New York
Case 1:25-cv-01424-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 11/10/25 Page 7 of 7