Collado v. Belliard

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-11112-WGY Document4 Filed 03/23/26 Page1of4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

LUIS COLLADO,

Plaintiff,

Vv. C.A. No. 25-11112-WGY

JUAN BELLIARD,

wee eee eee ese

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MarchZ3, 2026
YOUNG, D.J.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(h) (3).

I. Background

Luis Collado (“Collado”), who is proceeding pro se, filed a
complaint on the preprinted Pro Se 1 form provided by the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Doc. No. 1.
Collado identifies himself as a resident of Lawrence,
Massachusetts. Id. at 1 at @ I(A). The defendant is identified
as the manager of the Lawrence Housing Authority. Id. at @
I(B). The statement of claim consists of the following four
sentences:

1. On April 26, 2023, Juan Belliard assaul[ed Collado] in his
office.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT.
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:25-cv-11112-WGY Document4 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2of4

2. On November 23, 2023, Mr. Juan Belliard ilegal (sic)
removing from the apartment lease.

3. On [or] around April 26, 2023, [Belliard told Collado to]
go to you[r] country [because] you can’t come here with
yo(ur] family lest you are Jewish.

4.Mr. Juan Belliard [made defamatory statements] against
[Collado] with the children a family office on 07/29/2023.

Id. at q III.

Collado did not check a box on the form complaint to
indicate the basis of jurisdiction for this action, id. at @ II,
and he has not stated what relief he asks the Court to order.
Id. at @@ IV.

With the complaint, Collado filed an Application to Proceed
in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. No. 2.

II. Preliminary Review
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction."

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

Congress has given the federal courts jurisdiction over cases
where the cause of action arises under federal law or
cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and
there is diversity of citizenship among the parties. See 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and § 1332 (diversity).

“A federal court must always satisfy itself that it has

jurisdiction.”). Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. -, 145 S.Ct. 2190,

2201 (2025). “"{T]he burden of establishing jurisdiction must

fall to the party who asserts it." Woo v. Spackman, 988 F.3d

Case 1:25-cv-11112-WGY Document4 Filed 03/23/26 Page3of4

47, 53 (1st Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (3).

In conducting this review, the Court construes the

pleadings liberally because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se.

See. Rodi v. S. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (lst Cir.
2004). |
III. Discussion

Here, federal question jurisdiction does not exist under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 because Collado has not identified a cause of
action under federal law. To the extent Collado asserts an
assault or defamation claim, diversity jurisdiction does not
exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is not complete
diversity among the parties. Diversity jurisdiction requires
both an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000 and complete
diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs, on the one

hand, and all defendants, on the other hand.” Bearbones, Inc.

v. Peerless Indem. Ins. Co., 936 F.3d 12, 14 (lst Cir. 2019)

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)). 2004).
Iv. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED

pursuant to Rule 12(h) (3) for lack of subject matter

Case 1:25-cv-11112-WGY Document4 Filed 03/23/26 Page4of4

jurisdiction and the pending motion is denied as moot. The Clerk
shall enter a separate order of dismissal.

SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM G.
UNITED STALES STRICT JUDGE