Leder v. Chen et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 09/08/2014. (mas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROBIN LEDER,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civ. No. 14-762-RGA

CARL CHEN, et aI.,
Defendants.

Robin Leder, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

~

September
,2014
Wilmington, Delaware

~~

.. istrictJudge:

Plaintiff Robin Leder filed this action alleging embezzlement and theft, fraud and
false statements, and false claims and statements. 1 He appears pro se and has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (0.1. 4). The Court proceeds to review and
screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff alleges that on February 7,2013, he made a personal loan to Defendant
Carl Chen, who is also his landlord. On January 14,2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to Chen
recalling the loan. Chen refused to pay the loan, advised Plaintiff that he had signed a
new lease, and further advised Plaintiff that he was subtracting rent for a year from the
debt. Plaintiff states that he did not sign the lease. He alleges breach of contract,
monetary damages, and seeks criminal prosecution.
While the Complaint asserts jurisdiction by reason of a federal question (i.e.,
federal criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§. 641-69,1001; Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3802; contracts made by an agency of the United States, 41 U.S.C. §§
6503-07), the Court perceives no basis for federal jurisdiction. In addition, there is no
diversity jurisdiction. The Complaint and civil cover sheet indicate that, at the time he
initiated this lawsuit, Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Delaware as are Defendants.
Hence, the requisites for diversity jurisdiction are not met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (for

1To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to impose criminal liability upon the defendants
pursuant to the criminal statutes upon which he relies, he lacks standing to proceed.
See Allen v. Administrative Office of Pennsylvania COUltS, 270 F. App'x 149, 150 (3d
Cir. 2008); see United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531, 1539 (3d Cir. 1996) ("[T]he
United States Attorney is responsible for the prosecution of all criminal cases within his
or her district."). The decision of whether to prosecute, and what criminal charges to
bring, generally rests with the prosecutor. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S.
114, 124 (1979).

diversity jurisdiction the matter in controversy must exceed the sum or value of $75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs); id. at § 1332{a)(1) (for diversity jurisdiction the matter in
controversy must be between citizens of different States). Accordingly, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Amendment is futile.
An appropriate order will be entered.

2