POPE v. ADULT EDUCATION AND CAREER READINESS CENTER

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. For the reasons stated in the Order filed at this docket entry, this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling his case in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 1/17/18. (rdl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAMONE RAMONE POPE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADULT EDUCATION AND CAREER
READINESS CENTER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 17-254
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
This Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction on January 5, 2018, (Doc. 5). Plaintiff timely responded on
January 16, 2018, (Doc. 6). However, Plaintiff’s response states no valid basis for this Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, for the reasons below, this action will be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to Plaintiff filing an action in a court of
appropriate jurisdiction.

Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, claims that the Adult Education and Career Readiness
Center in Erie, Pennsylvania (the “Center”), an alleged Pennsylvania corporation, committed
slander against him by falsely attributing two incidents of misconduct to him and denying him
access to educational classes on that basis. (Complaint at ¶¶ I.A, I.B, II.A, IV.) While
Paragraph II of Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) Complaint checks the box for “Federal

question” jurisdiction, there is no federal cause of action for the tort of slander1 and Plaintiff’s
Complaint cited no federal law that would provide a federal cause of action. Although Plaintiff
does not allege diversity of citizenship, the Court notes that Plaintiff alleges that he is a
Pennsylvania citizen and that the Center is a business incorporated under the laws of
Pennsylvania with a principal place of business in Pennsylvania. (Complaint at ¶¶ II, II.B.1.a,
II.B.2.b.)
Based on these facts, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court’s Order to Show Cause explained
that “Federal district courts, unlike some state courts, are courts of limited jurisdiction. A federal
district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim arising under federal law, or one
between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that would establish jurisdiction on either
basis.” (Doc. 5.) The Court further clarified that “Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to show cause
why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (i.e., to show why
this case arises under federal law or why the parties are citizens of different states with an
amount in controversy above $75,000).” (Id.)
Plaintiff’s response cites two statutes and one case, none of which are relevant to the
exercise of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action based on Plaintiff’s state
law claims.2 Construed liberally in favor of Plaintiff, his arguments are that the authority of a

Plaintiff’s Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause also mentions “a show of
Negligence.” The Court notes that, as with slander, there is no federal cause of action for
negligence.
2
Plaintiff cites the following: 28 U.S.C. § 636 (concerning the powers of United States
magistrate judges); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3401(a) and (b) (concerning the powers of United States
magistrate judges to try criminal misdemeanors and defendants’ right in such cases to a criminal
trial by a United States judge); and Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited Inc., 347 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2003)
1

2

federal magistrate judge to try a criminal misdemeanor case implies federal jurisdiction to hear a
state law civil case and that slander is similar to a federal cause of action for sex discrimination
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As Plaintiff does not allege discrimination on
the basis of any protected status and does not explain how authority delegated to magistrate
judges vests this Court with subject matter jurisdiction to hear his case, these arguments are—to
say the least—unpersuasive.
* * *
For all of these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff
filing an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 17, 2018

s/Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via First-Class U.S. mail):
LAMONE RAMONE POPE
1024 PEACH STREET
ERIE, PA 16501

(addressing whether the fifteen-employee threshold under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 is a jurisdictional requirement).
3