Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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:
Before NIEMEYER
Circuit Judge.
and
DIAZ,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
December 3, 2015
and
DAVIS,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Cohen appeals the district courts order dismissing
his
civil
action
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B)(iii)
pauperis
at
any
time
it
determines
the
action
is
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
We
Home
Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna, 750 F.3d 427, 432 (4th Cir.
2014).
Cohen
first
argues
that
the
district
court
improperly
courts
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
Cohens
appellate
pleadings
state
law
jurisdiction.
legal
malpractice
District
courts
claim,
have
for
lack
original
of
diversity
jurisdiction
over
28
matter
jurisdiction,
properly dismissed.
and
his
state
law
claim
was
Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 247-48 (3d Cir. 2013) (holding
that,
generally,
prisoner
presumptively
retains
his
prior
Because
plead
facts
establishing
subject
matter
jurisdiction,
that
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
district
court
properly
dismissed
Cohens
While
constitutional
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.).
F.3d
895
890,
(9th
Cir.
2011)
(lack
of
subject
matter
See
we
affirm
that
Cohens
the
district
courts
judgment
putative
state
law
claim
for
legal
jurisdiction,
and
that
the
dismissal
order
is
not
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED