CLD-031 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-3301

___________

FRANK BRETT,

Appellant

v.

KEN BRETT; NANCY SALTER;

BILL NAULTY; NANCY NAULTY

____________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 1:12-cv-02929)

District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

November 2, 2012

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 8, 2012)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM

Frank Brett, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 
2

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See

Because we primarily write for the parties, we need only recite the facts necessary 

for our discussion. In his complaint, Brett alleges that Appellees opened his mail, 

obstructed his correspondence, “tipped off” various defendants in other lawsuits, and 

interfered with bank accounts at various banks. According to Brett, Appellees Bill and 

Nancy Naulty opened two letters addressed to Brett from the District Court, read the 

contents of these letters, and “tipped off” an insurance professional and various 

individuals who Brett alleges have been slandering him. He further argues that Appellee 

Nancy Salter opened his mail from Citizens Bank and Alliance Bank and then gave out 

his Social Security number. Finally, Brett alleges that Appellee Ken Brett opened his 

mail from a federal case pending in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and mail from various 

banks.

3d Cir. L.A.R 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

1

Brett filed his complaint on May 16, 2012, asserting that the District Court had 

jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1702. On June 18, 2012, the District Court granted 

Brett permission to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered that Brett’s complaint be 

dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend within twenty days. On July 17, 2012, 

the District Court dismissed Brett’s complaint with prejudice because he had not filed an 

 1 Although Brett’s complaint is approximately forty-one pages long, only the first seven 

pages appear to contain any factual statements. The majority of the remaining thirty-four 

pages consist of a long list of a series of letters and numbers, interspersed with random 
3

amended complaint pursuant to the District Court’s June 18, 2012 order. Brett then 

timely filed this appeal.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise 

plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 

F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to 

state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See id. To survive 

dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). We look for 

“‘enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of’ 

the necessary elements” of a claim for relief. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 

224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). We may summarily affirm 

on any basis supported by the record. Murray v. Bledsoe

We concur with the District Court’s conclusion that Brett’s complaint failed to 

establish subject matter jurisdiction. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction 

over an action, the parties must be citizens of different states and the amount in 

controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Citizenship of a natural 

, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 

2011) (per curiam).

 

names of individuals, business, and vehicle makes and models. Like the District Court, 

we cannot discern any sufficient explanation for the necessity of these pages.
4

person is determined by the state of his or her domicile. See Swiger v. Allegheny 

Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179, 182 (3d Cir. 2008). However, complete diversity is lacking 

when the plaintiff is a citizen of one state and a defendant is a citizen of that same state. 

See Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood

Federal courts also have subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but

“federal courts have federal question jurisdiction only when a federal claim appears in the 

complaint,” 

, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010). Here, 

Brett noted his domicile as Pennsylvania, and he listed Appellee Nancy Salter as a 

resident of Havertown, Pennsylvania. Therefore, we concur with the District Court’s 

observation that Brett’s complaint does not establish diversity jurisdiction.

Levine v. United Healthcare Corp.

Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or 

any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, 

or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the 

custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the 

person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, 

or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, 

embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or 

imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

, 402 F.3d 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2005) 

(citation omitted). Here, Brett has alleged jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1702, 

which states:

However, criminal statutes do not give rise to civil liability. See Andrews v. Heaton, 483 

F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 

(9th Cir. 2006). Brett does not allege any further violations of federal law for which he 
5

can assert a civil action, and so we concur with the District Court that Brett’s complaint 

does not establish federal question jurisdiction.2

For the foregoing reasons, no substantial question is presented and we will affirm 

the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we 

deny Brett’s motion to add District Judge Hillman as a defendant and to file this appeal

under seal,3

 2 To the extent that Brett’s complaint alleged claims of slander, we further note that the 

District Court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See

Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 935 (9th Cir. 2001) (“If there is no ‘original 

jurisdiction,’ there can be no supplemental jurisdiction either, for there is no jurisdiction 

to which supplemental jurisdiction can attach.”).

his motion to add evidence, and his amended motion to add District Judge 

Hillman as a defendant.

3 Under 3d Cir. L.A.R. 106.1, a motion to seal “must explain the basis for sealing and 

specify the desired duration of the sealing order.” Brett’s motion does neither; 

regardless, we discern no basis for ordering this appeal sealed.