1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SOLOMON DANCEY, : No. 4:CV-04-2601

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. :

:

ERIC RICHARDSON, :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

May 18, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On December 2, 2004, Plaintiff Solomon Dancey (“Plaintiff” or “Dancey”),

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

Middle District of Pennsylvania against Defendant Eric Richardson (“Defendant” or

“Richardson”) and filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

DISCUSSION:

In the complaint, Plaintiff completely fails to invoke the Court’s federal

jurisdiction. The Court’s understanding of Plaintiff’s claim is that he worked for

Defendant doing construction in exchange for renting a room where Plaintiff

maintains Defendant’s other property as a safe house. (See Rec. Doc. 1 at ¶ 3). 

Case 4:04-cv-02601-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

Apparently, after having given Defendant information concerning a close personal

friend’s drug use, the residence was “sabotaged” and Plaintiff later discovered that

his personal belongings were stolen by the Defendant. As compensation, Plaintiff

requests that specific items that were allegedly taken or damaged be returned or that

Plaintiff receive the fair market value of such items. Id. at ¶ 4. 

Nowhere on the face of the complaint does Plaintiff address the Court’s

jurisdiction except to state on the civil cover sheet that he is filing “a person to

person suit to recover all items in his possession to replace or fix any damage and

or to retain face value of all stolen item with honest estimate.” Id. at 3. 

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 

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. In this case, the addresses Plaintiff provides for

Case 4:04-cv-02601-JEJ Document 4 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 4
2

 We additionally note that Plaintiff does not state the amount in controversy in this case. We

are confident that the fair market value of the aggregate of all items delineated in the complaint that

Plaintiff seeks to recover will not exceed $75,000.

3

both parties are that of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Plaintiff has noted on the civil

cover sheet that both parties are citizens of the same state. We therefore conclude

that there is no complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.2 Accordingly,

we will alternatively consider whether the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter may

be predicated upon the existence of a federal question. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have been granted original

jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or 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. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(h) provides that “[w]henver it appears by suggestion of the parties or

Case 4:04-cv-02601-JEJ Document 4 Filed 05/18/05 Page 3 of 4
4

otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall

dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

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. The Clerk is directed to close the file on this case.

s/ John E. Jones III

 John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02601-JEJ Document 4 Filed 05/18/05 Page 4 of 4