The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PITTSBURGH
AARON ALEXANDER JOHNSON, )
)
) 2:23-CV-00814-MJH
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
)
AT&T,
)
Defendant,
OPINION
Aaron Alexander Johnson commenced this proceeding by filing a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) and attaching a Complaint seeking to establish claims under the Americans
with Disabilities Act against AT&T. (ECF No. 1-1).
The Third Circuit has instructed the district courts to utilize a two-step analysis to
determine whether to direct service of a complaint where the plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis. Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n.1 (3d Cir. 1990). First, the court must determine
whether the litigant is indigent within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court finds Mr.
Johnson to be without sufficient funds to pay the required filing fee. Thus, he will be granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Second, the court must determine whether the complaint is frivolous or malicious under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court
identified two types of legally frivolous complaints: (1) those based upon indisputably meritless
legal theory, and (2) those with factual contentions which clearly are baseless. Id. at 327. An
example of the first is where a defendant enjoys immunity from suit. Id. An example of the
second is a claim describing a factual scenario which is fantastic or delusional. Id. at 328. In
addition, Congress has expanded the scope of § 1915 to require that the court be satisfied that the
complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted before it directs service; if it does not,
the action shall be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
While the Court would be within its power to conduct such inquiry, the review of Mr.
Johnson’s Complaint raises fundamental jurisdictional issues that will mandate dismissal.
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court, sua sponte, to
dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Subject
matter jurisdiction is the Court's authority to hear a case. Generally, subject-matter jurisdiction
arises through the assertion of a federal question or through the diversity of the parties. If a case,
as presented by the plaintiff, does not meet the requirements of subject-matter jurisdiction or if it
is otherwise barred by law, then the Court must dismiss the plaintiff's action. Importantly, the
court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists,
even in the absence of a challenge from” the defendant. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500,
514 (2006). Federal courts cannot exercise jurisdiction where Congress has not given it, even if
all parties assume subject matter jurisdiction exists. Hartig Drug Co., 836 F.3d at 267.
Mr. Johnson asserts subject-matter jurisdiction based upon a federal question via the
Americans with Disabilities Act. (ECF No. 1-2). Federal question jurisdiction is defined as
follows:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C.A. § 1331. Here, the allegations in the Complaint do not invoke any provisions of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Johnson avers that he purchased an iPhone 14 Pro Max,
signed a two-year contract, and that said iPhone did not operate upon purchase. (ECF No. 1-1 at
¶ 4). Such allegations raise no more than a common law state law breach of contract claim and
not a federal question. Accordingly, this Court cannot maintain jurisdiction over Mr. Johnson’s
claim based upon a federal question.
Given Mr. Johnson’s pro se status and giving him the benefit of the doubt, the Court will
also examine the potential for his establishment of subject-matter jurisdiction through diversity.
Diversity jurisdiction is defined by statute in relevant part as follows:
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). In short, a plaintiff must allege diverse citizenship and an amount of
controversy that exceeds $75,000. When examining “estimations of the amounts recoverable
must be realistic. The inquiry should be objective and not based on fanciful, “pie-in-the-sky,” or
simply wishful amounts, because otherwise the policy to limit diversity jurisdiction will be
frustrated.” Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 403 (3d Cir. 2004).
Here, as regard diverse citizenship, Mr. Johnson alleges that he is a resident of
Pennsylvania and that Defendant, AT&T, is a resident of Texas. (ECF No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 1-2)
However, with regard to an amount in controversy, Mr. Johnson avers that he seeks $75,000 in
restitution, the cost of the phone, and ADA damages. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6. As discussed above, the
allegations and context of Mr. Johnson’s Complaint does not invoke the ADA, and as such, no
ADA damages or remedies would be available. At most, Mr. Johnson’s Complaint, if true, avers
a potential breach of contract for a defective phone. As such, a demand for $75,000 in restitution
is unrealistic in this context. Therefore, Mr. Johnson’s Complaint would not invoke diversity
jurisdiction under Section 1332(a)(1).
Accordingly, because Mr. Johnson’s Complaint cannot establish subject-matter
jurisdiction on the basis of federal question or diversity, his Complaint will be DISMISSED.
And because the content of his Complaint makes it clear that federal jurisdiction is not
appropriate, no leave to amend will be granted.
A separate Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 58 will follow.
DATED this 26th day of September, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Sent via mail to:
AARON ALEXANDER JOHNSON
1111 RESERVOIR AVE.
MONESSEN, PA 15062