Court Opinion

ID: 9841209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 17:00:46.497205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:40:35.925664
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                     FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                          ___________

                              No. 23-1392
                              ___________

                        ALLYSON WALLACE,
                                      Appellant

                                   v.

EASTER JONES; JON DOES 1–5; NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY;
 ROSEMARY B. MITCHELL, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JULIA B.
         MITCHELL; THE ESTATE OF JULIA B. MITCHELL
             ____________________________________

             On Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the District Court of New Jersey
                         (D.C. No. 2:22-cv-04833)
              District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti
              ____________________________________

            Submitted for Possible Jurisdictional Defect or
    Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                         on August 17, 2023

      Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

                   (Opinion filed: September 21, 2023)
               ____________________________________
                                      ___________

                                       OPINION *
                                      ___________

PER CURIAM

       Pro se appellant Allyson Wallace sued her neighbors and an insurance company

for damage to her house caused by a fire. The District Court, reviewing the matter under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because

the complaint did not present a federal question and because Wallace had not pleaded di-

versity jurisdiction. It dismissed Wallace’s amended complaint, but granted her leave to

file a second amended complaint within 14 days. Wallace did so, but the District Court

dismissed it for the same reason, entering an order to this effect on September 27, 2022.

Wallace filed her notice of appeal on February 27, 2023. 1

       We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review

over a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Allah v. Seiver-

ling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We may summarily affirm when no substantial

issue is presented on appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

       Upon review of Wallace’s complaint and brief in support of appeal, we concur

with the District Court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Although

Wallace maintains that her complaint presents a federal question, it concerns negligent

*
  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
  The appeal is timely pursuant to the separate judgment rule. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(7).

                                             2
fire damage and a contractual dispute with an insurance company, which are matters of

state law. See Lindy v. Lynn, 501 F.2d 1367, 1369 (3d Cir. 1974) (finding a lack of juris-

diction because the case presented was “purely one as to the correct interpretation and ef-

fect of certain contractual documents, an ordinary contract dispute to be determined by

the application of the principles of [state] contract law”). Nothing in her complaint sug-

gests that any federal statute or other law applies. Likewise, the District Court lacked di-

versity jurisdiction. Not only did Wallace fail to affirmatively plead the citizenship of all

parties, but it is clear from the face of her complaint that the defendants include her

neighbors. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Grand Union Supermarkets of the V.I., Inc. v.

H.E. Lockhart Management, Inc., 316 F.3d 408, 410 (3d Cir. 2003) (“Jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (2001) requires complete diversity of the parties; that is, no plain-

tiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants.”).

   Because the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we will affirm its order

dismissing Wallace’s complaint.

                                              3