NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROBERT L. JENKINS, et al., :

: Civil Action No. 10-0366 (RBK)

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. : OPINION

:

LOWE’S HOME CENTER, INC., :

et al., :

:

Defendants. :

APPEARANCES:

Plaintiffs pro se

Robert L. Jenkins

Southern State Correctional Facility

Delmont, NJ 08314

Caroline J. Barnes

2741 Dogwood Circle

Valdosta, GA 31602

KUGLER, District Judge

Plaintiff Robert L. Jenkins, a prisoner confined at Southern

State Correctional Facility in Delmont, New Jersey, seeks to

bring this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Co-plaintiff

Caroline J. Barnes, of Valdosta, Georgia, is not a prisoner. She

has not sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, nor has she

prepaid the filing fee for a civil action.

At this time, the Court must review the Complaint to

determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or

Case 1:10-cv-03326-RBK-JS Document 2 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 35
malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who

is immune from such relief.

I. BACKGROUND

The following factual allegations are taken from Plaintiff’s

Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of this review.

The Complaint asserts that on September 19, 2008, Plaintiff

Robert Jenkins selected and purchased a certain exterior and trim

house paint from the Lowe’s Home Center in Valdosta, Georgia. He

alleges that on September 29, 2008, he returned to the Lowe’s

Home Center in Valdosta, Georgia, to purchase some additional

paint, but was sold an inferior paint, resulting in the

discoloration of his home.

The Complaint alleges that on October 1, 2008, Mr. Jenkins

brought his complaint to the customer service department of

Lowe’s Home Center, Inc., which agreed, in conjunction with Store

Manager Corbin Neeley and Assistant Store Manager Scott Storey,

to provide Mr. Jenkins with a satisfactory replacement product

and to pay him to apply it to his home. The Complaint alleges

that Mr. Neeley and Mr. Storey then failed to provide the

replacement product.

The Complaint alleges that Mr. Neeley then began to make

telephone calls to co-plaintiff Caroline Barnes, as a result of

which he decided that she was uneducated and could not be the

2

Case 1:10-cv-03326-RBK-JS Document 2 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 36
homeowner. The Complaint alleges that the defendants then

refused to provide the replacement product or otherwise comply

with their agreement because the plaintiffs are African-American.

The Complaint alleges that the plaintiffs have filed a civil

complaint in Lowndes County Magistrate Court in Valdosta,

Georgia, arising out of these events. The Complaint does not

describe the status of that litigation.

Here, the Plaintiffs allege that the defendants have

violated their civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,

1982, 1983, and 1985. The named defendants are Lowe’s Home

Center, Inc., the C.E.O. of Lowe’s Home center, Inc., store

manager Corbin Neeley, assistant store manager Scott Storey, and

a John Doe agent or employee of Lowe’s Home Center, Inc., who

allegedly conspired with Mr. Neeley, in disguise, invading

plaintiffs’ private property.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as

compensatory and punitive damages.

II. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

This Court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time,

certain in forma pauperis and prisoner actions that are

frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a

3

Case 1:10-cv-03326-RBK-JS Document 2 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 37
governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions

brought with respect to prison conditions).

In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the

Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the

plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); United

States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). The Court must

“accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint and all

reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Morse v. Lower

Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997).

III. ANALYSIS

It is not clear, from the allegations of the Complaint, that

this Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over all of the

defendants in this action. 

Under Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

federal district court has personal jurisdiction over nonresident

defendants “to the extent authorized under the law of the forum

state in which the district court sits.” Suinbelt Corp. v.

Noble, Denton & Assoc., Inc., 5 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1993). New

Jersey’s long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction to the

boundaries of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

See N.J.Ct.R. 4:4-4.

A federal district court may exercise either general or

specific jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. When a court

4

Case 1:10-cv-03326-RBK-JS Document 2 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 38
exercises jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit not arising out

of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum, the

Court is said to be exercising general jurisdiction over the

defendant. In such circumstances, due process is not offended if

the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum so that

traditional notions of fair play are not offended by the exercise

of jurisdiction. See generally Helicopteros Nacionales de

Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-15 (1984) (collecting

cases). Setting aside the corporate defendant, nothing in the

Complaint suggests that this Court could exercise general

jurisdiction over the nonresident individual defendants.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff asserting

specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant must establish

(1) that the defendant purposefully directed his activities at

the forum, (2) that the action arises out of or is related to at

least one of those activities, and (3) if the first two

requirements are met, that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction

otherwise comports with notions of fair play and substantial

justice. See generally D’Jamoos v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566

F.3d 94, 102-03 (3d Cir. 2009) (collecting cases).

Again, the claims asserted here do not arise out of any

defendant’s activities in this forum. Accordingly, this Court

may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the

defendants in this matter.

5

Case 1:10-cv-03326-RBK-JS Document 2 Filed 07/26/10 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 39
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, when a district court finds that it

is lacking jurisdiction,

the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice,

transfer such action or appeal to any other such court

in which the action or appeal could have been brought

at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or

appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in or

noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the

date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for

the court from which it is transferred.

28 U.S.C. § 1631; see also Island Insteel Sys., Inc. v. Walters,

296 F.3d 200, 218 & n.9 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting that § 1631

permits transfer for lack of in personam jurisdiction).

Moreover, even if this Court could properly exercise

personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this matter, this

District does not appear to be a proper venue for these claims.

A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded

solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as

otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a

judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial

district in which a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, ... or

(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be

found, if there is no district in which the action may

otherwise be brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). See also Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 1

F.2d 804, 813-14 and n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (a court may raise

considerations of venue sua sponte); Garcia v. Pugh, 948 F.Supp.

 For purposes of venue under this section, “a defendant 1

that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial

district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the

time the action is commenced.”

6

Case 1:10-cv-03326-RBK-JS Document 2 Filed 07/26/10 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 40
20, 23 (E.D. Pa. 1996)(same). See also 15 Charles Alan Wright,

Arthur R. Miller and Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 3844 (2d ed.).

Here, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead the residence of

any of the defendants except Lowe’s Home Center, Inc., which

appears to reside, at the least, in Valdosta, Georgia. 

Certainly, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts

suggesting that any of the individual defendants reside in this

district. Plaintiffs have, however, pleaded that all of the

events occurred in the area of Valdosta and Lowndes County,

Georgia.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “For the convenience of

parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district

court may transfer any civil action to any other district or

division where it might have been brought.” Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b), the appropriate district where the pleaded

facts indicate this action could be brought is the Middle

District of Georgia, in which all or a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred and where

the Complaint suggests that all defendants can be found. It

appears to be in the interest of justice to transfer this action. 

This Court expresses no opinion, however, on the timeliness or

merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.

IV. CONCLUSION

7

Case 1:10-cv-03326-RBK-JS Document 2 Filed 07/26/10 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 41
For the reasons set forth above, this action will be

transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Georgia. An appropriate order follows.

s/Robert B. Kugler 

Robert B. Kugler

United States District Judge

Dated: July 26, 2010 

8

Case 1:10-cv-03326-RBK-JS Document 2 Filed 07/26/10 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 42