MICHAELS v. VICKERS et al

Filing 52

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not alleged facts which establish a federal question, nor is there jurisdiction on the grounds of diversity of citizenship because the Amended Complaint fails to state the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy and plaintiff appears to be a resident of Florida. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 12/15/2011. (kld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARREN-JAMES MICHAELS,
Plaintiff,

v.
NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS INC.,
Defendant.

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 11-157 Erie

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Darren-James Michaels, pro se, commenced this action against Defendants Lisa
Echeverri Vickers, Jeff Atwaters, and Ladasiah Jackson Ford alleging a variety of claims.

For

the reasons stated herein, we dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) provides that "[i]fthe court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Plaintiffs claims appear to arise
from a delinquent child support obligation enforced against him in a proceeding initiated in the
State of Florida. Plaintiff attempts to invoke our equity jurisdiction in support of his claims and
as the basis of his action. Although federal courts may entertain claims sounding in equity,
federal jurisdiction must be present in the first instance.
A review of the Amended Complaint reveals that plaintiff has not alleged facts which
establish a federal question. He alleges a cause of action for fraud and breach of trust, which are
state law concepts and do not implicate a federal question.

Plaintiff seeks specific performance

of a trust under the law of equity, a general injunction to restrain, a merger of titles, and a return
of trust res. These are not federal questions.

1

As for potentiaijurisdiction on the grounds of diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332
mandates that he allege specific facts that the amount in controversy requirement has been met
and that there is complete diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the presence
of the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy; his claims are based in equity and no
monetary damages are sought. This alone would destroy diversity jurisdiction. Even so, in his
Civil Cover Sheet he notes that he disagrees with the status of being a citizen of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: he describes himself is a "PA State National." We further
note that (as more fully detailed in defendants' motion to dismiss and as confirmed by public
records), plaintiff appears to be a resident of Florida, thus destroying complete diversity of
citizenship between the parties.
AND NOW, to wit, this

I S fay of December 2012, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED and DECREED THAT this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and the Clerk is directed to close this case. All pending motions are DENIED AS
MOOT.

~t~~ Ce,.~,:.u,

¥.

Hon. Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
Senior United States District Court Judge

2