The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
AZIKIWE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 22-2892 (RMB/AMD)
v.
TONNEETT KING, OPINION
Defendant.
BUMB, U.S. District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon the filing of a complaint and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by Plaintiff Azikiwe Davis
(“Plaintiff”). [Docket Nos. 1, 1-2.] For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant
Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP, but will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack
of federal subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated the present lawsuit claiming that he was falsely imprisoned
and wrongfully charged for weapon possession. [Docket No. 1, at 4.] Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Tonneett King (“Defendant”), the mother of his child, “put a
restraining order on me because I didn’t sign over my right[s] to my son . . . lied to
the family court . . . [and] told them I had guns[,] bullet proof vests[,] and other
artilleries.” [Id. at 3.] Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully arrested and imprisoned
after a physical altercation ensued between him and Defendant during a period when
Defendant’s restraining order against the Plaintiff was in effect. [Id.]
II. DISCUSSION
A. IFP Application
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an applicant to proceed IFP must submit an
affidavit that includes a complete list of the applicant’s assets and establishes that the
applicant is unable to pay the requisite fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Roy v. Penn. Nat’l
Ins. Co., No. 14-4277, 2014 WL 4104979, at *1, n.1 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2014) (citations
omitted). The decision to grant or deny an IFP application is based solely upon the
economic eligibility of the applicant. See Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15, 19 (3d Cir.
1976). In his IFP application, Plaintiff indicates that he is currently unemployed, has
been unemployed for the past two (2) years, and has no assets. [Docket No. 1-2, at 1–
5.] Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff established that he qualifies for permission to
proceed IFP as he lacks the financial ability to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the
Court will grant Plaintiff’s IFP Application.
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The Court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself of its subject matter
jurisdiction, and the Court “always has jurisdiction to determine its [own]
jurisdiction.” Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2010)
(citing United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002)). “A federal court has subject
matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens
of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of
$75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App'x 82, 83 (3d
Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff only asserts that the Court has federal question
jurisdiction over his claims. [Docket No. 1, at 2.] Plaintiff does not assert that the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under a theory of diversity of citizenship, and
Plaintiff has not pled which state(s) he and Plaintiff are citizens of to assert any such
theory. [Id. at 2–3.] Plaintiff also fails to indicate which of his Constitutional,
statutory, treaty or other federal rights is at issue. [Id.] To be sure, “[f]ederal question
jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the
complaint.” Rockefeller, 424 F. App'x at 83.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations of false imprisonment squarely
concern a state law cause of action, and that the Complaint fails to present any
federal question. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:13-3 (West). In the event that Plaintiff
believes that he is able to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, he shall
refile a complaint with this Court that clearly sets forth the basis for the Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction, including which federal right he is asserting (if asserting
federal question jurisdiction), or setting forth the requirements of diversity of
citizenship (if asserting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court shall dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
[Docket No. 1], without prejudice. An accompanying Order as of today’s date shall
issue.
May 26, 2022 s/Renée Marie Bumb
Date Renée Marie Bumb
U.S. District Judge