The opinion of the court was delivered by: WORTENDYKE
This case is before me on cross-motions for summary judgment. One is brought by the plaintiff, and the other by the defendant Perth Amboy Housing Authority. The verified complaint was filed with the Clerk of this Court on April 11, 1966, seeking a judgment "enjoining and restraining the defendants from the use of William Dunlap Homes, low renting housing project, as an official polling place during the election scheduled for May 10, 1966 and subsequent general elections and restraining such use for any other federally sponsored housing project in the City of Perth Amboy." Upon the filing of the complaint and plaintiff's ex parte application, an Order to Show Cause was made by this Court directing the defendants to show cause why the plaintiff should not have preliminary injunctive relief in the direction prayed for in the complaint. During the argument upon the return of the Order to Show Cause, the action was dismissed as to the defendant Middlesex County Board of Elections and Harold Augustine, City Clerk of the City of Perth Amboy. By its order of May 4, 1966, the Order to Show Cause for preliminary injunction was dismissed.
It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff, a resident citizen of the City of Perth Amboy in this District, is a candidate for election to the office of Commissioner of the Board of Commissioners of that City at an election to be held on May 10, 1966. The complaint further alleges that in compliance with the provisions of the laws of the State of New Jersey, the Middlesex County Board of Elections and the City Clerk of said City selected and duly designated, as an official polling place for elections in District 13, Ward 6 of said City, a community room forming a part of a low rent housing facility, constructed in said City pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. under the auspices and with the financing of the United States Public Housing Administration, of which Herman Hillman is director. Because the plaintiff fails to find in 42 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1436 authority for use of the community room in said housing facility for the polling purposes stated, and because of the presence, on previous occasions during such elections at said polling place, of the Executive Director-Secretary of the Perth Amboy Housing Authority, plaintiff charges that the designations of that place for polling purposes is in violation of the spirit and intent of the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. § 118i and § 118k. The complaint also alleges that the plaintiff occupies the status of municipal chairman of the Republican Municipal Committee of the City of Perth Amboy. Nowhere in the complaint is there an allegation complying with F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) stating "* * * the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends * * *". In what is captioned an amendment of the complaint, which was filed May 2, 1966, the plaintiff cites the following claimed bases for his contention that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, viz.: 42 U.S.C. §§ 1401, 1404(a), 1405(b) and 1408; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1343; 5 U.S.C. §§ 1009, 118i and 118k; Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, and the 14th Amendment thereto.
In its answer, filed May 13, 1966, Perth Amboy Housing Authority affirmatively pleads that the Court is without jurisdiction, that the complaint fails to allege a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, and improper venue.
The respective motions for summary judgment duly noticed by the plaintiff and by the defendant Perth Amboy Housing Authority have been submitted to the Court for decision upon the respective briefs of those parties and the affidavits which have been filed in the cause. 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4) do not confer jurisdiction upon the Court of the cause of action alleged in the complaint as amended. The cited subdivisions of § 1343 relied upon by the plaintiff provide as follows:
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person; * * *.
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote."
The plaintiff would incorporate by reference in the phrase "civil action authorized by law" in the foregoing § 1343 the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 reading as follows:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
At the threshold it is obvious that, since the Board and Clerk who caused the community room of the housing project to be designated and used as a polling place are no longer parties defendant in the action, no relief as provided in § 1983 can be afforded to the plaintiff against them. Plaintiff concedes that the County Board of Elections and the City Clerk, by selecting and officially designating the premises as a polling place, acted in compliance with N.J.S.A. 19:8-1 and 19:8-4, thus acted under the color of the New Jersey statute cited.
The face of the complaint discloses the absence of the two elements requisite for recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, viz.:
Despite its amendment, the complaint still fails to comply with F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) because it does not contain the required short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends, coupled with a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Construing the pleadings most liberally in favor of the plaintiff, they allege in sum merely that he was a candidate at a municipal election to be held at a polling place in a public housing project duly designated to be used for that purpose by the appropriate State authorities pursuant to the provisions of State law. The allegation, that in past elections the director of the municipal housing authority has been present during the course of elections within the designated polling place, and employees and ...