United States District Court, D. New Jersey
RENÉE MARIE BUMB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Frank Roy (the “Plaintiff”) initiated the above
actions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court
must preliminarily screen in forma pauperis filings,
and must dismiss any filing that is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's
Complaints and finds that they fail to convince this Court
that it has subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff is seeking to bring each of these matters in front
of the Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff must properly
allege the citizenship of each defendant. Pursuant to §
1332, the matter in controversy must be between
“citizens of different states” and the
citizenship of each party must be alleged specifically.
See S. Freedman & Co. v. Raab, 180 Fed.Appx.
316, 320 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that citizenship is to be
alleged “affirmatively and
distinctly”). The Court notes that for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed to be a
citizen of both the state where it has been incorporated and
the state where it has its principal place of business, 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), and the matter in controversy must
exceed “the sum or value of $75, 000. . . .”
Moreover, with respect to natural persons, the Court notes
that residency is not tantamount to citizenship. McCann
v. Newman Irrevocable Tr., 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir.
2006). Finally, while courts “generally accept a
party's good faith allegation of the amount in
controversy, ” “where . . . the court challenges
the . . . allegations regarding the amount in question, the
[party] who seeks the assistance of the federal courts must
produce sufficient evidence to justify its claims.”
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Tarbuck, 62 F.3d
538, 541 (3d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
Court also has subject matter jurisdiction when a federal
question is presented. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To the extent
Plaintiff is alleging a constitutional violation, he must
allege that the defendant acted “under color” of
state law; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the vehicle.
“[C]onduct satisfying the state action requirement of
the Fourteenth Amendment satisfies [Section 1983's]
requirement of action under color of state law.”
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 935 n.18
(1982). “Like the state action requirement of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the under color of state law element of
§ 1983 excludes from its reach ‘“merely
private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or
wrongful.”'” American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.
v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999) (quoting Blum v.
Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982) (quoting Shelley
v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948))). Liability under
Section 1983 “attaches only to those wrongdoers
‘who carry a badge of authority of a State and
represent it in some capacity, whether they act in accordance
with their authority or misuse it.'” National
Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S.
179, 191 (1988) (quoting Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S.
167, 172 (1961)). “The traditional definition of acting
under color of state law requires that the defendant in a
§ 1983 action have exercised power ‘possessed by
virtue of state law and made possible only because the
wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state
law.'” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49
(1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S.
299, 326 (1941)).
act ‘under color of' state law for § 1983
purposes does not require that the defendant be an officer of
the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in
joint action with the State or its agents. Private persons,
jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged
action, are acting see [sic] ‘under color' of law
for purposes of § 1983 actions.” Dennis v.
Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980) (citing Adickes v.
S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970);
United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794 (1966));
see also, Abbott v. Latshaw, 164 F.3d 141,
147-48 (3d Cir. 1998). “[A]n otherwise private person
acts ‘under color of' state law when engaged in a
conspiracy with state officials to deprive another of federal
rights.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920
(1984) (citing Dennis, 449 U.S. at 27 28). Plaintiff
has failed to allege joint action under color of state law in
IT IS HEREBY on this 8th day of
ORDERED that each Complaint is dismissed
without prejudice, but that within thirty (30) days of the
date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall file amended
complaints curing, if possible, the deficiencies identified
above under Rule 8(a) in each action; and
FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to
file such amended complaints within thirty (30) days of the
date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff's complaints in
the above-captioned matters will remain dismissed by the
Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
 Complete diversity is required. That
is, “the citizenship of each plaintiff [must
be] diverse from the citizenship of each
defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519
U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (emphasis added).
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)
(“A pleading that states a claim for relief must
contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court's jurisdiction . . . (2) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may