Woman alleges Karidat violently evicted her

A woman has filed a civil lawsuit against Karidat Social Services, alleging she was violently evicted from the organization’s women’s shelter, Guma Esperansa.

Zhou Peirong filed the civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the NMI, alleging she and her son was violently evicted from the Guma Esperansa on June 8, 2021, when Karidat gathered her belongings in a trash bag and threw them out.

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona granted Zhou’s in forma pauperis application, meaning she can proceed with her suit at no cost to her. The court did, however, dismiss the complaint but allowed her to amend it so she could justify why the federal court has jurisdiction over her case.

According to the complaint, Zhou and her son had been at the Karidat shelter since May 25, 2021. Allegedly, on June 8, 2021, she and her son were “violently evicted” from the shelter, their belongings put in a trash bag and they were thrown out.

In her order granting Zhou’s in forma pauperis application, Manglona stated that, because Zhou claims she is unemployed and only receives public assistance to support herself and her minor son, Zhou may proceed with her complaint without prepaying the fees or costs.

However, regarding Zhou’s complaint, Manglona found that Zhou has failed to cite any particular federal law stating that her case falls under the federal court’s jurisdiction.

“Manglona must first determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction before it can consider the merits of the complaint. She represents that there is federal question jurisdiction but fails to cite to any particular federal law. In 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the statute for federal question jurisdiction, [it] explains that ‘[t]he district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’ Here, Zhou’s bare bone complaint is premised on an eviction by Karidat from the Guma Esperansa shelter. ‘Because landlord-tenant disputes are matters of state law, an action for eviction cannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction.’ The court concludes it lacks federal question jurisdiction such that it must dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Moreover, the court is unable to divine an alternative basis for subject matter jurisdiction,” said Manglona.

Although Zhou has not adequately pleaded jurisdiction, Manglona said the court grants her leave to amend her complaint to correct the deficiency by alleging sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction.