Opinion
Civil Action No. 16-3131 (MAS) (TJB)
06-14-2016
DANDYSON I. AJUKA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. POLICASTRO, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER ON APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES
This matter comes before the Court on the application of Plaintiff Dandyson I. Ajuka ("Plaintiff") to proceed without prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Application, ECF No. 1-1.) The Court will grant the application on the strength of Plaintiff's allegation of indigence but dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 1) for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.").
Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claim against his former attorney Defendant Michael A. Policastro ("Defendant" or "Mr. Policastro"). (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he hired Mr. Policastro to defend his brother in a criminal matter; that he and Mr. Policastro agreed that "if [Mr. Policastro] was not able to resolve the matter as he said he could, [Plaintiff] would be fully reimbursed"; "Mr. Policastro was not able to do what he said he could"; and his attempt to obtain reimbursement pursuant to his agreement was "not successful." (Id. at 3.) Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks "the full amount of $1,500.00" from Mr. Policastro. (Id. at 4.)
Federal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, may not decide a matter in the absence of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982). "Generally, there are three bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant, (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)." TM Marketing, Inc. v. Art & Antiques Assocs., L.P., 803 F. Supp. 994, 997 (D.N.J. 1992). "A plaintiff, suing in a federal court, must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court . . . must dismiss the case . . . ." Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926). Here, Plaintiff's Complaint does not provide a basis for finding federal subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly,
IT IS, on this 14th day of June 2016, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915;
2. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint without prepayment of fees or security;
3. The Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and
4. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this matter CLOSED.
/s/ _________
MICHAEL A. SHIPP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE