Court Opinion

ID: 2964313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:52.630715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:53.745746
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        October 4, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2151

                                 ALLAN O. DENCHFIELD,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                  JULIUS E. WALLER,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Allan O. Denchfield on brief pro se.
            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per   Curiam.       Plaintiff-appellant   Allan  O.
                      ____________

            Denchfield appeals pro se from the dismissal of his complaint
                               ___ __

            as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   1915(d).  We affirm.

                      It  was  appropriate for  the  district court,  sua

            sponte, to issue  a show cause order  requiring Denchfield to

            explain why his complaint should not be dismissed for lack of

            subject matter jurisdiction.   Cf. In re Recticel Foam Corp.,
                                           ___ _________________________

            859 F.2d 1000, 1002 (1st Cir. 1988) ("It is too elementary to

            warrant citation  of authority that a court has an obligation

            to inquire  sua sponte into its  subject matter jurisdiction,

            and to proceed no further if such jurisdiction is wanting.").

            The  facts alleged  in the  complaint do  not confer  federal

            question  jurisdiction.1   And,  although  Denchfield invoked
                                   1

            diversity jurisdiction and indicated on the civil cover sheet

            that  he was seeking $400,000.00, the  complaint is devoid of

            any specific allegations supporting an amount  in controversy

            in excess of $50,000.00.  

                      Once   challenged,  a   party  seeking   to  invoke

            diversity  jurisdiction  has  the  burden  of  alleging  with

            sufficient particularity the facts  indicating that it is not

            a  legal certainty  that  the claim  involves  less than  the

            jurisdictional amount.  Department  of Recreation & Sports v.
                                    __________________________________

                                
            ____________________

               1Contrary  to Denchfield's suggestion,  the complaint does
               1
            not state a claim under 42 U.S.C.   1983.   Most notably, the
            defendant is  a private citizen,  and the complaint  fails to
            allege facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant
            acted under "color of law."  

                                         -2-

            World  Boxing  Ass'n,  942  F.2d  84,  88  (1st  Cir.  1991).
            ____________________

            Denchfield's response to the show cause order was egregiously

            late and, we think, failed to meet this burden.  Accordingly,

            we  find no error in  the dismissal.  We add  that we find no

            abuse of discretion in the  district court's failure to grant

            Denchfield's belated motion for  appointment of counsel.  See
                                                                      ___

            DesRosiers  v.  Moran,  949  F.2d  15,  24  (1st  Cir.  1991)
            __________      _____

            (explaining that we will overturn the denial of a request for

            appointed counsel in a  civil case only if the  record, taken

            as  a whole, reflects a  manifest abuse of  the trial court's

            broad discretion).

                      Affirmed.  
                      _________

                                         -3-