Final Report and Recommendation — Raissa Djuissi Kengne v. ID.me, Inc. and Cogency Global, Inc

Source document: Final Report and Recommendation — Raissa Djuissi Kengne v. ID.me, Inc. and Cogency Global, Inc; document type: Magistrate judge's final report and recommendation.

Full text

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

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

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

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

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

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.304058.7.0_1.pdf

Size

156,219 bytes

SHA-256

8df0adae74791059350491ddc70ee9e5a6f48be50d51d8b057bded40d688783d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.304058.7.0_1.pdf

Original

www.courtlistener.com