Jeffrey Cohen v. Brendan Hurson, No. 15-6722 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6722 JEFFREY COHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRENDAN A. HURSON, Federal Public Defender; DEBORAH L. BOARDMAN, Federal Public Defender; JAMES WYDA, Federal Public Defender, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00986-ELH) Submitted: November 25, 2015 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, December 3, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Cohen, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Cohen appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2) (2012), and designating the dismissal as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s judgment as modified. A federal court is required to dismiss an action brought in forma pauperis at any time it determines the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is (2012); immune see from 28 such U.S.C. relief.” § 1915A(b) 28 U.S.C. (2012). § 1915(e)(2)(B) We review the dismissal of a complaint as frivolous for abuse of discretion. Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2004). review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. We Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna, 750 F.3d 427, 432 (4th Cir. 2014). Cohen first argues that the district court improperly construed his action as asserting a civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). While Cohen’s constitutional claim alleging ineffective assistance by his federal public defenders is more appropriately construed as seeking relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 2 U.S. 388, 397 (1971), we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of this claim as frivolous. See Christian v. Crawford, 907 F.2d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. liberally, see 1982). Construing Cohen’s appellate pleadings Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), he next challenges the court’s dismissal of his complaint, to the extent it raised a state law jurisdiction. legal malpractice District courts claim, have for lack original of diversity jurisdiction over civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the dispute is between citizens of different states. U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2012). 28 Because Cohen did not include in his complaint any allegations relevant to his citizenship, he did not meet his obligation to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction, properly dismissed. and his state law claim was See Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, Md., 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999). However, the record also provides no basis from which to affirmatively conclude that the parties lacked diversity of citizenship. See Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 247-48 (3d Cir. 2013) (holding that, generally, prisoner presumptively retains his citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction). prior Because Cohen’s state law claim was properly dismissed for failure to 3 plead facts establishing subject matter jurisdiction, that dismissal “must be one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.” S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013) (hereinafter “Broadlands”). Cohen also contends that the district court erred in dismissing his action as frivolous and assessing a PLRA strike against him on that basis. An action is properly dismissed as frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” the Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). district court properly dismissed Cohen’s While constitutional claim as frivolous, the district court’s “alternative holdings on the merits assertedly supporting its dismissal” of Cohen’s state law claim “were beyond the power of the district court.” Broadlands, 713 F.3d at 185 n.4; see also United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 793 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[N]o other matter can be decided without subject matter jurisdiction.”). Moreover, neither a dismissal without prejudice nor a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Moore v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 895 890, (9th Cir. 2011) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction); McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 397 (4th Cir. 2009) (dismissal without prejudice). 4 Because only part of Cohen’s action was subject to dismissal on a ground enumerated under § 1915(g), the dismissal does not count as a strike. See Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635 F.3d 646, 651 (4th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm dismissing Cohen’s action. reflect that Cohen’s the district court’s judgment However, we modify the judgment to putative state law claim for legal malpractice is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and strike under § 1915(g). that the dismissal order is not a We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.