2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-2-2010

Rokhvarg v. Dept Comm Affairs

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2786

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Rokhvarg v. Dept Comm Affairs" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1951.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1951
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2786

___________

YAKOV ROKHVARG,

Appellant

v.

THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JOSEPH V. DORIA, JR., Commissioner;

THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

NICOLAS SACCO, Mayor 

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 09-01821)

District Judge: Honorable Faith S. Hochberg

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 20, 2010

Before: SMITH, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed February 2, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Yakov Rokhvarg appeals from an order of the District Court granting the
 Rokhvarg has proceeded with this case pro se from its inception. 1

2

Defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1). We will affirm.

I.

In Rokhvarg’s complaint he alleged that the Defendants, two local public officials,

conspired to ignore the deterioration of an apartment complex owned and managed by

Rokhvarg, thereby jeopardizing the health and safety of the tenants in that complex. 

Rokhvarg requested the following relief: 1) that the Defendants be ordered to

immediately relocate the tenants; 2) compensatory damages in the amount of $258,000 for

the “intentional physical destruction” of the complex “as a result of the conspiracy”; 3)

compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000 for each tenant “for playing ‘Russian

Roulette’ (A game of probability) with the tenants lives”; and 4) counsel fees and costs. 1

Defendants moved to dismiss Rokhvarg’s complaint, alternatively pursuant to Rule

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court granted

the motion, finding that even drawing all reasonable inferences in Rokhvarg’s favor, “the

Complaint raises no federal grounds upon which relief may be granted.” The District

Court declined to give Rokhvarg leave to amend his complaint, determining that any

amendment would be futile. The District Court concluded that because it was dismissing

Rokhvarg’s complaint, his “Order to Show Cause with Emergency Safety Relief” was
3

also denied. Rokhvarg appealed. 

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See CNA v. United States,

535 F.3d 132, 139 (3d Cir. 2008). We review de novo the District Court’s grant of a Rule

12(b)(1) motion. See Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F.3d 625, 626 (3d Cir. 2009). We

review for abuse of discretion the District Court’s decision to deny Rokhvarg leave to

amend his complaint. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.

2002). 

III. 

We find no error by the District Court in the proceedings below. The jurisdiction

of federal district courts is limited: it only can be exercised over civil actions that arise

under federal law (i.e., federal question jurisdiction), or those that arise between citizens

of different states where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 (i.e., diversity

jurisdiction). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a). For purposes of federal question

jurisdiction, a claim arises under federal law if it is apparent from the face of the

complaint that the cause of action was created by federal law. See Joyce v. RJR Nabisco

Holdings Corp., 126 F.3d 166, 171 (3d Cir. 1997). For diversity jurisdiction, a

complainant must plead that he is a citizen of a particular state and that the defendants are

citizens of a different state. See Grand Union Supermarkets of the V.I., Inc. v. H.E.

Lockhart Mgmt., 316 F.3d 408, 410 (3d Cir. 2003). 
4

The District Court clearly lacked diversity jurisdiction over the parties, all of

whom are citizens of New Jersey. In addition, the District Court correctly determined that

Rokhvarg’s complaint did not advance a cognizable claim under federal law, thus

precluding the District Court from exercising federal question jurisdiction. As a result, it

was proper for the District Court to grant the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rokhvarg’s contention on appeal that the

Defendants should be prosecuted for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (criminalizing

conspiracy to impede the exercise of federal rights) is not a cognizable federal claim in a

civil suit, cf. United States v. Philadelphia, 644 F.2d 187, 199 (3d Cir. 1980), and it does

not demonstrate that the jurisdictional defects in Rokhvarg’s complaint can be

ameliorated. Therefore, the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to

give Rokhvarg leave to amend his complaint.

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order. Rokhvarg’s motions are

denied.