Xuejie He v. United States ( 2022 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-2546
___________
XUEJIE HE;
HEYANGJING SHI,
Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW
YORK; UNION CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; GUTTENBERG POLICE
DEPARTMENT; CHASAN LAMARELLO MALLON & CAPPUZZO PC; HUDSON
HOSPITAL OPCO LLC; CAREPOINT HEALTH CHRIST HOSPITAL; HUDSON
COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE; DELTA AIR LINES INC; ALIBABA GROUP
HOLDING LIMITED; TAOBAO; ASLAN AVIATION SERVICES (SHANGHAI) CO
LTD; DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP PLLC; COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS;
CATHOLIC CHARITIES COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER; NEW YORK CITY;
BILL DE BLASIO; NEW YORK CITY RESCUE MISSION; NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION; TRINITY COMMONS; TRINITY
EPISCOPAL CHURCH PARISH CENTER; NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN
FOUNDATION INC; NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL; NEW YORK
PRESBYTERIAN LOWER MANHATTAN HOSPITAL; WEILL CORNELL
MEDICAL; CANTONESE INTERPRETER FOR NY PLMH; MODERN MEDICAL
PC; AFFINITY HEALTH PLAN INC; CENTENE CORPORATION; FIDELIS CARE;
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; NEW YORK CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT 109TH PRECINCT; NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
120TH PRECINCT; NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 121 PRECINCT;
GARDEN OF HOPE; NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY; TRANSIT
ADJUDICATION BUREAU; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION; NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT; MOUNT SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM INC; ICAHN SCHOOL
OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI; MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL; MOUNT SINAI
BETH ISRAEL; MOUNT SINAI WEST; RICHMOND UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
CENTER; OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK CITY CONTROLLER; NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY; NEW YORK UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY;
METROPOLITAN DENTAL ASSOCIATES; LEGAL SERVICES NYC; LEGAL AID
SOCIETY; NEW YORK CITY MARSHALS; CAMBA INC; CITY UNIVERSITY OF
NEW YORK; BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE; RENATA
V. WEBER; JOAN M. KENNEY; DORIS LING-COHAN; LIZBETH GONZALES;
MATTHEW F. COOPER; LOUIS L STANTON; BARRINGTON D. PARKER; PETER
W. HALL; CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY; KIMBERLY SLADE; LIN YANFEN;
MASH JIM; LIUFENG CHEN; JOHN DOE JIM; HINGSZE CHAO; JOHN DOE B
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-08545)
District Judge: Honorable John M. Vazquez
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 26, 2022
Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed February 25, 2022)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellants Xuejie He and Heyangjing Shi appeal from the District Court’s
dismissal of their second amended complaint after screening it pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s
judgment.
In July 2020, appellants filed a complaint against more than seventy defendants,
including the United States, several U.S. states, community non-profit organizations,
hospitals, universities, state and federal judges, and various individuals. Appellants made
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
allegations about a series of unconnected events over the course of several years. The
District Court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellants’ claims
after screening their complaint, as the parties were not diverse and there was no basis for
federal jurisdiction given appellants’ allegations. The District Court dismissed this
complaint with leave to amend, explaining the requirements for appellants to clarify their
claims.
Appellants filed an amended complaint, which the District Court screened again
and dismissed with further leave to amend. Appellants then filed a second amended
complaint, the operative complaint here. Appellant He alleged that various defendants
failed to assist her after she was sexually assaulted, that other defendants did not provide
adequate medical care when she sought it over the course of several years, and that she
had been illegally evicted. Appellants also discussed issues with an airline flight and a
burglary, among other allegations. After screening this complaint, the District Court
concluded that appellants had not made any meaningful changes to their allegations and
that they failed to state a claim, dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.
Appellants timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We construe
appellants’ allegations liberally and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s
dismissal of their operative complaint for failure to state a claim. See Allah v. Seiverling,
229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
Appellants primarily repeat some of the factual allegations from their second
amended complaint in their appellate brief. Their only citation to federal law is to 42
3
U.S.C. § 2000a, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of
race, color, religion, or national origin. At no point have appellants made allegations
suggesting that any defendant discriminated against them based on their race, color,
religion, or national origin, in a place of public accommodation. Further, § 2000a does
not authorize money damages, which is all that appellants sought in the District Court.
See Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968).
Accordingly, after careful review of appellants’ allegations, we agree with the
District Court that dismissal was appropriate. See Allah, 229 F.3d at 223. Because
appellants received several opportunities to amend their complaint, the District Court did
not abuse its discretion in concluding that granting further leave to amend would have
been futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
Thus, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
4