1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEE B. MORGAN, : No. 4:CV-05-995

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. :

:

LACKAWANNA COUNTY :

COMMUNICATION CENTER, :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

May 18, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On May 16, 2005, Plaintiff Lee B. Morgan (“Plaintiff” or “Morgan”),

proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Pennsylvania against Defendant Lackawanna County

Communication Center (“Defendant”) and an Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. (See Rec. Docs. 1-2). 

DISCUSSION:

In the complaint, Plaintiff states that the information being requested is in

regards to a call the 911 communications center received on July 14, 2004 at

approximately 8:00 p.m. from the Newton Recreation Center concerning Plaintiff’s

Case 4:05-cv-00995-JEJ Document 4 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 4
1

 Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides federal courts with supplemental jurisdiction over

claims in limited circumstances. 

2

daughter. Plaintiff explains that he would like to know where the “Chinchilla

CLS/ALS” and the Newton Ransom Volunteer ambulance were at the time of the

call, what training the call center employees who answered the afore-mentioned call

possess, the length of their employ at the communication center, and poses several

other questions in his one page complaint.

As a federal court with limited jurisdiction, we may only hear a case if the

Constitution or a federal statute provides us with jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). Subject matter

jurisdiction may arise in one of two forms: diversity jurisdiction or federal question

jurisdiction.1 

First, where jurisdiction is based upon diversity, the matter in controversy

must exceed $75,000 and there must be complete diversity of citizenship between

the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It is evident to the Court that this case does not

involve diversity of citizenship, and thus we do not have jurisdiction under §

1332. 

Second, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have been granted

original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

Case 4:05-cv-00995-JEJ Document 4 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 4
3

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The determination of whether a

claim arises under federal law, and therefore presents a federal question, “is

governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,

392 (1987)(citing Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-13 (1936)); see

also Dukes v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 57 F.3d 350, 353 (3d Cir. 1995). 

After a thorough review of the complaint, the Court does not find that

Plaintiff has asserted a claim that presents a federal question. The complaint

appears to be a series of interrogatories that in no way activate federal jurisdiction. 

We speculate that Plaintiff may be attempting to gather information in support of

his claim; however, conducting discovery in aid of a filing does not activate federal

jurisdiction. To the extent that Plaintiff believes he has a claim and needs to get

additional information in support thereof, the Court strongly recommends that he

consult counsel of his choosing in order to help him understand his legal rights, as

well as his responsibilities with respect to prosecuting the above-captioned action. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h) provides that “[w]henver it appears by

suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject

matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ. P. 12(h)(3). We will

Case 4:05-cv-00995-JEJ Document 4 Filed 05/18/05 Page 3 of 4
4

therefore dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and in the interest of

caution, provide him with twenty (20) days to file an amended complaint that shall

state a federal cause of action. If Plaintiff fails to do so within twenty days (20),

then the Clerk shall close the file on this case. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint (doc. 1) shall be dismissed without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (doc. 2) is

denied as moot.

3. Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to file

an amended complaint which shall state a federal cause of action. 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days

that states a federal cause of action, then the Clerk shall close the file

on this case. 

s/ John E. Jones III

 John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00995-JEJ Document 4 Filed 05/18/05 Page 4 of 4