Report and Recommendation — Raissa Djuissi Kengne v. ID.me, Inc. (Dkt. 7, No. 1:22-cv-02237-SEG, N.D. Ga.)

Summary

A Final Report and Recommendation in Raissa Djuissi Kengne v. ID.me, Inc., and Cogency Global, Inc., Civil Action File No. 1:22-cv-02237-SEG, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Document 7, filed August 5, 2022. It states that Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee after the Court's Order of June 8, 2022 (Doc. 2) denied the request to proceed in forma pauperis. It also states that the proposed complaint, about access to an ID.me account for unemployment benefits, does not establish subject matter jurisdiction. It recommends that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to comply with a lawful order. It is dated August 5, 2022, over the name of United States Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Date: 2022-08-05

Cite this document

“Report and Recommendation — Raissa Djuissi Kengne v. ID.me, Inc. (Dkt. 7, No. 1:22-cv-02237-SEG).” Original at ecf.gand.uscourts.gov, dated 2022-08-05. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2022-06-08-plaintiff-civil-action-file-v-no-1-0670bb2a-1/, SHA-256 0670bb2a7f0e9c7e08ab63ad871ed4d8fedce1514b780c9964e47008f99dfc87.

Full text

Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 7 Filed 08/05/22 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

RAISSA DJUISSI KENGNE,
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION FILE
v. NO. 1:22-cv-02237-SEG
ID.me, INC., and COGENCY
GLOBAL, INC.,
Defendants.

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s

Order dated June 8, 2022 denying her request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”),

and ordering her to pay the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk within 21 days of the

date of the Order if she wished to proceed with this case. [Doc. 2, Order].

The Order was based on the financial affidavit that Plaintiff completed and

filed under penalty of perjury.1 [Doc. 1]. The Order instructed Plaintiff that if she

1
Plaintiff’s affidavit (signed and declared true under penalty of perjury)
indicated that over the past twelve months, Plaintiff earned an average monthly income
of $7500 from her employment and retirement (which amounted to $90,000 on an

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 7 Filed 08/05/22 Page 2 of 5

failed to pay the filing fee, the undersigned would recommend that the action be

dismissed.

The Order further notified Plaintiff that if she sought to proceed with her

lawsuit, she should first “ensure that she alleges a valid claim and that federal and/or

diversity jurisdiction exists.” [Id. at 2 n.2]. The Order pointed out that after review

of her proposed complaint, it was doubtful that any of the federal or state statutes cited

by Plaintiff in her proposed complaint provided any individual right of action in

federal court.2 [Id.]. This was the first of three lawsuits that Plaintiff filed in this court

annual basis). She listed no children or a spouse that rely on her for support, and she
indicated that she owns a condo valued at approximately $500,000, a land lot worth
$55,000, and an abandoned house worth approximately $200,000. [Doc. 1, Pl.’s Aff.].
The undersigned found that Plaintiff’s annual income was well above the poverty
level, and while she listed average monthly expenses that exceeded her monthly
income, I noted that some of those discretionary amounts for one person seemed
unnecessarily high, such as $1000 for food, $1000 for utilities, $200 for laundry and
dry cleaning, and $6000 to Bank of America, Citi Bank, and American Express. [Doc.
2 at 2]. I concluded that while she may have limited funds and may have other
priorities for those funds, according to her affidavit, she was able to pay the required
$402 filing fee and should do so if she wished to pursue this case. [Id.].
2
Plaintiff’s proposed complaint alleges, as a basis for federal question
jurisdiction, that the named defendants violated the following federal and state statutes
by refusing to provide Plaintiff access to her account on ID.me’s website in order for
Plaintiff to receive unemployment benefits, “causing Plaintiff to live without income”:
42 U.S.C. § 1104 (Unemployment Trust Fund); 26 U.S.C. § 3301, et seq. (Federal
Unemployment Tax Act); and O.C.G.A. § 34-8-45 (Supplemental Unemployment
Benefits). [Doc. 1-1 at 3–4]. Plaintiff has cited no authority indicating that any of
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 7 Filed 08/05/22 Page 3 of 5

in the same week seeking permission to proceed IFP.3 For the same or similar reasons,

all of Plaintiff’s applications to proceed IFP were denied.

Instead of timely paying the filing fee and submitting an amended complaint,

Plaintiff filed a 678-page motion for appeal, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), Federal Rule

of Appellate Procedure 24, and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) as the purported governing

authorities. [Doc. 5]. In that motion, Plaintiff argues that by delaying and preventing

Plaintiff from accessing her ID.me unemployment account, ID.me has “wrongfully,

illegally, and/or unlawful [sic] depriving Plaintiff of food, shelter, and adequate

healthcare,” and “violated Plaintiff unalienable rights under the 14th Amendment

Title I” and her “right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness as well as due

process.” [Doc. 5 at 9]. That motion remains pending before the district judge

assigned to this case.

With regard to the complaint that Plaintiff has filed in this case, not only has

Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee; she has also failed to establish subject matter

these statutes provide an individual right of action in federal court.
3
See Case No. 1:22-cv-02237-SEG, Raissa Djuissi Kengne v. ID.me, Inc., et
al.; Case No. 1:22-cv-02263-SEG-CMS, Raissa Djuissi Kengne v. AG South Farm
Credit, et al.; and Case No. 1:22-cv-02297-SEG-CMS, Raissa Djuissi Kengne v.
Georgia Power Co.

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 7 Filed 08/05/22 Page 4 of 5

jurisdiction over her claim(s). It is well-settled that a federal court is obligated to

inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.

University of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). It is the

plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that the action is based on diversity jurisdiction, or

that the action contains one or more claims arising under the Constitution, treaties or

laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) & (b), 1331(a), 1332. In this case,

the civil cover sheet that Plaintiff completed to initiate this lawsuit indicates that she

is asserting federal question jurisdiction. [Doc. 1-3 at 1]. However, there are no

allegations in Plaintiff’s proposed complaint to support federal question jurisdiction.

She has not cited any federal law or statute that would provide federal question subject

matter jurisdiction over her claims.

It is also doubtful that diversity jurisdiction exists. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332, federal district courts have original jurisdiction for all civil actions where the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. See

id. Plaintiff’s complaint and Section Three of the civil cover sheet that Plaintiff

completed indicate that she is a citizen of Georgia and that Defendants’ principal place

of business is in this state. [Doc. 1-1 at 4; Doc. 1-3 at 1]. Plaintiff alleges that the

amount in controversy “cannot be easily estimated,” but her claim generally alleges

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 1:22-cv-02237-SEG Document 7 Filed 08/05/22 Page 5 of 5

that she is entitled to receive unemployment benefits, but Defendants’ alleged refusal

to provide access to her account on their website means she is “unable to use her

unemployment benefits to pay her mortgage.” [Doc. 1-1 at 4]. Plaintiff’s complaint

fails to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between

citizens of different states.

In sum, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP was DENIED and she has failed

to pay the filing fee, as directed by the Court. She has also failed to establish that this

Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. I therefore RECOMMEND that

Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, and for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court.

There being nothing further before me, the Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate

the submission and/or reference.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED AND DIRECTED, this 5th day of August, 2022.

CATHERINE M. SALINAS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.gand.304058.7.0.pdf
Size: 156,220 bytes
SHA-256: 0670bb2a7f0e9c7e08ab63ad871ed4d8fedce1514b780c9964e47008f99dfc87
Our copy: gov.uscourts.gand.304058.7.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)