Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-8579
March 24, 2003.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
All of the numerous defendants have filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's pro se complaint, both for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. I agree that plaintiff's complaint does not set forth any intelligible claims against anyone. The complaint has now been supplemented to some extent by plaintiff's "Affirmation in Opposition to [the Motions to Dismiss]" . In combination, these documents suggest the possibility that plaintiff is convinced he has been wronged. Apparently, he purchased a large Bucks County country estate, for a large amount of money, but later learned that the total acreage involved was somewhat less than he had been led to expect. Whether plaintiff may or may not have valid claims against one or more of the defendants is not entirely clear. I need not pursue such questions, however, since it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the controversy. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New York, and at least two of the defendants are also citizens of that state. The only basis for jurisdiction asserted in the complaint is diversity of citizenship. No conceivably valid federal claims are asserted. This action will therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter. An order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2003,
IT IS ORDERED:
That this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.