LEE v. OAK et al, No. 2:2009cv05656 - Document 2 (D.N.J. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting Pltf's IFP; ORDERED that the Clk file the Cmp in this action w/out prepayment of the filing fee; ORDERED that Pltf's Cmp is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the Court's own motion pursuant for failure to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction; and it is further ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. re 1 Complaint Received. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 11/13/09. (dr, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
NOT FOR PUBLICATION CLOSED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY FELTON LEE, Plaintiff, v. ROBIN OAK, ELISE JOHNSON, MARIE JOSE, TOMIKA SCOTT, NATALIE WARD, TOMMY BROOKS, YVONNE JONES, JEAN CRAWFORD, JOAN CRAWFORD, CELLING COOP, Defendants. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Hon. Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J. Civ. No. 09-5656 (SRC) OPINION AND ORDER Chesler, U.S.D.J., This matter comes before the Court on the application of pro se Plaintiff Felton Lee ( Plaintiff or Lee ) to file a Complaint without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on Plaintiff s affidavit of indigence, the Court finds that Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, having thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff s allegations, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This Court must have either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. The enabling statue for federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provides that district courts have jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States. Here, there is no assertion that Plaintiff s Complaint meets the requirements for federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff simply alleges that defendants have stolen his property, committed fraud and breach of contract. The Complaint also fails to demonstrate diversity jurisdiction. The enabling statute for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, provides that no defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff, and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. By alleging $90,000 in damages, Plaintiff has adequately met the amount in controversy requirement. The diversity of citizenship requirement, however, has not been met. A natural person is deemed to be a citizen of the state where he is domiciled. Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 569 (1915). A corporation is a citizen both of the state where it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332©. Here, Plaintiff and most, if not all, Defendants are citizens of the State of New Jersey. As Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of the same state, the Complaint fails to demonstrate diversity jurisdiction. II. Conclusion As the Complaint fails to demonstrate that this Court possesses proper subject matter jurisdiction, the Complaint will be dismissed; IT IS on this 13th day of November, 2009, ORDERED that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to file the Complaint in this action without pre-payment of the filing fee; and it is further -2- ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the Court s own motion pursuant for failure to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction; and it is further ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. s/Stanley R. Chesler STANLEY R. CHESLER United States District Judge DATED: November 13, 2009 -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
