Weeks v. Bowman

• Decision Date: 10 February 2017
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 16-9050
• Parties: BLAIR M. WEEKS, Plaintiff, v. JACQUETTA BOWMAN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

BLAIR M. WEEKS, Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUETTA BOWMAN, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-9050

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

February 10, 2017

Not for Publication

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff's letter disputing the Court's December 14, 2016 Order dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (D.E. Nos. 3 & 4). For the reasons below, Plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

1. Factual & Procedural Background. Plaintiff initiated this civil action on December 7, 2016. (D.E. No. 1, Complaint ("Compl.")).¹ In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is appealing a New Jersey municipal court's finding that Defendants were not guilty of multiple counts of harassment. (Id. at 7). According to Plaintiff, Defendants Jacquetta Bowman, Plaintiff's aunt, committed two counts of assault as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5). (Id.). He also alleges that Defendant Darnell Robinson, Plaintiff's uncle, committed two counts of assault as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 113 (a)(3) and (a)(5), and one violation of either 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(1) or (a)(3). (Id.).

Page 2

The gravamen of Plaintiff's Complaint is that he allegedly experienced rude and violent treatment while living with his aunt and uncle in Carteret, New Jersey. (Id.).

After reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint, on December 14, 2014, the Court issued an Order dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff did not appear to state a claim under federal law and did not allege sufficient facts to establish diversity jurisdiction (namely, the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332). (D.E. No. 3). On December 30, 2014, Plaintiff responded to the Court's Order with a letter to "counter[] the claims of the order of dismissal." (D.E. No. 4, Plaintiff's December 30, 2016 Letter ("Letter") at 1).

2. Plaintiff's Arguments. According to Plaintiff, 18 U.S.C. § 3231 vests the Court with jurisdiction to hear the case because he is alleging certain violations of federal criminal law. (Id.). Plaintiff's Complaint also asserts subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. (Compl. at 2). Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the Court has jurisdiction because municipal cases in New Jersey can be appealed within twenty days of a ruling. (Letter at 2).

3. Legal Standard. "Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction." Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541-42 (1986). In order to adjudicate a civil case, a federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction. Id. District courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions that implicate federal law or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

"A case arises under federal law within the meaning of § 1331 . . . if a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006). A district court has

Page 3

jurisdiction of a civil action based on diversity of citizenship when the action arises between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The Court has authority to examine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte...