# MCLEOD v. FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PA

> District Court, D. New Jersey · April 23, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10656038

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** April 23, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10656038

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

STEVE MCLEOD,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 20-20475 (RK) (DEA)
V.
FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PA, et al., MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants.

KIRSCH, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Court’s review of the docket and upon
Plaintiff Steve McLeod’s (“Plaintiff”) proposed Amended Complaint. (“Second Amended
Complaint” or “SAC,” ECF No. 62.) This case, filed in 2020, has a long and tortured procedural
history. Most recently, all pending motions were administratively terminated, and this case was
stayed at the request of Plaintiff. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a proposed Second Amended
Complaint, and this case was reopened. Upon review of the Second Amended Complaint, the Court
has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. For the reasons that follow,
this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
This case is one of a myriad of lawsuits that Plaintiff has filed in this District in the wake
of a contentious child custody proceeding that occurred in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (See McLeod
v. Camper et al., No. 19-20421; McLeod v. UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, et al., No.
21-116, McLeod v. Brick Township Police Department, No. 22-5704; McLeod v. Camper, et al.,
No. 23-2374.) The Court will not recount Plaintiffs child custody-related litigation history, which
is treated in depth in this Court’s Opinion dismissing Plaintiff’s 2019 complaint in a different

matter for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Opinion, McLeod v. Camper et al., No. 19-20421,
ECF No. 61.)
In the instant matter, the proposed Second Amended Complaint is difficult to discern. It
appears to name twenty-three (23) defendants,! and it involves many of the same underlying
incidents and Defendants as Plaintiff's other matters. As with his other Complaints, Plaintiff
alleges that numerous Defendants have made false allegations of child abuse against him, that
judges who serve in the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania have discriminated against him or
otherwise abused their authority in connection with his child custody proceedings, that he has been
blocked from communicating with his daughter and denied visitation rights, and that his daughter
is receiving mental health treatment at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh without his
consent. (Compare SAC with Third Amended Complaint, McLeod v. Camper et al., No. 19-20421,
ECF No. 45 and with Amended Complaint, McLeod v. UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh,
et al., No. 21-116, ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff also appears to allege that his Social Security benefits
are being improperly garnished, presumably in connection with child support proceedings. (SAC
at *25.) Plaintiff further alleges that Brick Township police officers have harassed him and his
daughter. (Ud. at *15.) Plaintiff also seems to bring other allegations of discrimination pertaining
to his interactions the Brick Ownership Police Department regarding a package that was allegedly
stolen from his porch. (/d. at *16.)

' Defendants are the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Judge Cathleen Bubash, Judge Hugh Fitzpatrick
McGough, Judge Daniel Regan, Judge Sabrina Korbel, Judge Kim Eaton, Chester Beattie, the Women
Center and Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh, Margaret Prescott, Dickie McCamey and Chilcote PC, Jeffrey
Hantz, Tara Hopper Rice, the Allegheny Law Department Tittle IV Solicitor, the Alleghany County Office
of Children, Youth, and Families, Donald Jerich, New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Tara
Matthews, the Brick Township Police Department, the Allegheny County Sheriff Department, the Deputy
Sheriff of Allegheny County Sheriff Department, Donald Macejka, Carolyn Jones, Lavaughn Lane Evans,
and the Social Security Administration.

wT

Plaintiff filed the instant case on December 29, 2020, along with an application to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 1.) On January 19, 2021, the originally-named Defendants
moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and based on Rooker-Feldman and immunity
doctrines. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff thereafter sought the appointment of pro bono counsel and to
amend his complaint. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) The Honorable Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, then U.S.M.J.,
denied Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel but permitted Plaintiff to file a First
Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.) Plaintiff subsequently filed another Motion to Appoint
Pro Bono Counsel, a First Amended Complaint, and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF
Nos. 12, 13, 14.) The Clerk of Court administratively terminated Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
and the Honorable Judge Brian R. Martinotti, U.S.D.J., granted Plaintiff's application to proceed
IFP and ordered the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 16.)
Thereafter, there was a flurry of motions on the docket, including multiple Motions to Dismiss as
well as a third Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel, a second Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
and a Motion to Enforce Subpoena filed by Plaintiff. (See ECF Nos. 20, 32, 36, 45, 51.)
On August 24, 2022, Judge Quraishi, now U.S.D.J., issued an Order to Show Cause why
this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 53.) Judge
Quraishi advised that Plaintiff may show cause by filing a certification or by filing a Second
Amended Complaint that sets forth a valid basis for jurisdiction by September 23, 2022. (/d.)
Rather than respond as instructed by the Court, Plaintiff filed yet another Motion to Appoint Pro
Bono Counsel. (ECF No. 56.) After Judge Quraishi issued another Order to Show Cause regarding
why this matter should not be consolidated with Plaintiff’s other cases in this District, Plaintiff
requested that this action be adjourned for six (6) months due to Plaintiff's medical issues. (ECF

Nos. 58, 59.) Accordingly, on January 30, 2023, this matter was stayed and administratively
terminated. (ECF No. 60.)
On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the proposed Second Amended Complaint which is now
pending before this Court. (ECF Nos. 62.) In May 2023, Judge Quraishi ordered the Clerk of Court
to reopen this matter, Plaintiff filed another application to proceed IFP, and this case was
reassigned to the Undersigned. (ECF Nos. 63, 64, 65.) As Plaintiff has already been given
permission to proceed IFP in this matter, the Court finds it unnecessary to revisit Plaintiff’s
financial position. The Court now considers, sua sponte, whether the Second Amended Complaint
establishes a basis for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. The Court concludes that
it does not.
IL. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts are courts of limited, not general jurisdiction, Bender v. Williamsport Area
Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541-42 (1986). A district court must have subject matter jurisdiction
through “power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,
Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). Subject matter jurisdiction may be based on diversity of citizenship
or on a federal question raised in the case. Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the matter “is between citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.
1332(a)(1). The party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. McNutt v. Gen.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Samuel—Bassett vy. KIA Motors Am., Inc.,
357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004). A party meets this burden by proving diversity jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence. McNutt, 298 U.S. at 189. Federal question jurisdiction exists when
a plaintiff asserts a claim “arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28
U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal law within the meaning of section 1331 when “a well-

pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the
plaintiff’ s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”
Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006) (citation omitted); see
also Trent Realty Assoc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n. of Phila., 657 F.2d 29, 33 (3d Cir. 1981)
(citation omitted) (“The federal question must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.”’).
District courts also share concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Federal Claims over
certain non-tort actions brought against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (sometimes
referred to as the “Little Tucker Act’). This provision gives district courts jurisdiction over claims
for money damages of less than $10,000 founded on the Constitution. See Lemus v. McAleenan,
No. 20-3344, 2021 WL 2253522, at *3 (D.N.J. June 3, 2021); Wilkens v. United States, No. 03-
1837, 2004 WL 1198138, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2004). For claims in which more than $10,000 is
at issue, courts have interpreted the Tucker Act to provide for exclusive jurisdiction to the Court
of Federal Claims. See Dia Nav. Co. v. Pomeroy, 34 F.3d 1255, 1267 (3d Cir. 1994) (collecting
cases).
A district court must presume that it lacks jurisdiction over a matter unless jurisdiction is
shown to be proper. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994),
Moreover, a court may raise the issue of its own subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp., 48 F.3d 742, 750 (3d Cir. 1995) (“[F]ederal courts
have an ever-present obligation to satisfy themselves of their subject matter jurisdiction and to
decide the issue sua sponte.’’). It is well-settled that if a court determines at any time that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Gonzalez v.
Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012); Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 77 (3d Cir. 2003);
Ben-Haim v. Neeman, 543 F. App’x 152, 154 (3d Cir. 2013). As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the

ec

Court construes the allegations in the Complaint liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir.
2021) (citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013)).
Il. DISCUSSION
Based on the Court’s sua sponte review of this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is appropriate to
dismiss the Complaint sua sponte pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
The Second Amended Complaint checks two boxes for the bases of this Court’s
jurisdiction: (1) Diversity of Citizenship and (2) U.S. Government Defendant. The Court will begin
with diversity. In his August 24, 2022 Order to Show Cause as to why Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Quraishi
cautioned that, because Plaintiff provided a New Jersey address for a defendant in this action, the
Court may not have complete diversity. (ECF No. 53.) In his Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff failed to cure this issue. Rather, Plaintiff’s proposed pleading lists New Jersey addresses
for multiple defendants: he lists addresses in Toms River, New Jersey for Defendants New Jersey
Department of Children and Families and Tara Matthews and an address in Brick, New Jersey for
Defendant Brick Township Police Department. (SAC at *10-11.) Indeed, Plaintiff lists “New
Jersey” as his own “‘state(s) of citizenship” and lists “New Jersey and Pennsylvania” for
“Defendant(s) state(s) of citizenship.” (Ud. at *2.) “Section 1332 requires complete diversity: every
defendant must have different citizenship from every plaintiff.” CNX Gas Co. v. Lloyd’s of
London, 410 F. Supp. 3d 746, 751 (W.D. Pa. 2019) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S.
185, 187 (1990)). Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that complete diversity exists
in the case at bar.

ko

Next, the Court addresses whether subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1346
based on Plaintiff's naming of the Social Security Administration (“the SSA”) as a Defendant in
this action. Plaintiffs claims against the SSA are sparse and somewhat difficult to discern. Plaintiff
appears to be alleging that the SSA has impermissibly garnished Plaintiff’ s income from disability
benefits pursuant to a state court child support order. (SAC at *25.) According to Plaintiff, the
Allegheny Law Department violated 31 U.S.C. § 3729 and 18 U.S.C. § 286 by sending false
information to the SSA for garnishment. Ud. at *25, 29.) Plaintiff appears to argue that the Court
has jurisdiction because plaintiff is seeking a “reimburse[ment] . . . for the amount deducted from
his social security disability ....” Ud. at *32-33.)
First, the Court notes that Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant Allegheny Law
Department’s alleged provision of false information to the SSA—not conduct by the SSA itself.”
Second, Plaintiff attempts to allege that the garnishment of his Social Security benefits violates
the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729. Ud. at *25.) As the Court noted in its Memorandum
Opinion dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint in another of Plaintiff's cases, the False Claims Act
imposes civil liability upon “[a]ny person” who, inter alia, “knowingly presents, or causes to be
presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government... a false or fraudulent
claim for payment or approval.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). The act does not subject a state or state
agency to liability for suits brought by private individuals. Vermont Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex

* The Court also notes that, to the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to bring a Constitutional claim against
the SSA under the Little Tucker Act, this Court would only have jurisdiction if Plaintiff seeks damages that
do not exceed $10,000. Otherwise, Plaintiff’s claim would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court
of Federal Claims. See Dia Nav. Co., 34 F.3d at 1267 (upholding a district court’s dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction when the amount sought exceeded $10,000 and therefore violated the Tucker Act’s “explicit
jurisdictional bar.”’) In the instant case, Plaintiff attempts to seek reimbursement for the amount deducted
from his disability benefits, which according to Plaintiff is $651 per month since May 21, 2018, which
would result in damages in excess of $45,000. The Court would be barred from exercising jurisdiction over
such a claim.

rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787 (2000). Moreover, Plaintiff has not followed the requisite
procedures set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 3703(b) for bringing a qui tam action under the False Claims
Act. (See Memorandum Opinion, McLeod y. Camper et al., No. 19-20421, ECF No. 61 at 12 n.10
(rejecting Plaintiffs attempt to bring a claim under the False Claims Act).) Third, to the extent that
Plaintiff is attempting to bring claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 286, or 242 pertaining to the
garnishment of his Social Security benefits, as this Court has also previously noted, these are
criminal statutes and therefore do not provide a private cause of action. See, e.g., Graf v. lora, No.
23-01375, 2023 WL 7031544, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2023) (collecting cases); (see also
Memorandum Opinion, McLeod v. Camper et al., No, 19-20421, ECF No. 61 at 12 (rejecting
Plaintiff's attempt to bring claims under criminal statutes).) Accordingly, the Court finds that,
although Plaintiff checked the box for “U.S. Government Defendant,” this does not provide a basis
for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this case.”

* Courts may dismiss cases for lack of jurisdiction “due to merits-related defects in only narrow categories
of cases.” Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 349-50 (3d Cir. 2016). For example, “where the alleged
claim under the Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the
purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’” Jd. at 350
(quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946)). Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate where
the claims are “‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise
completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.’” Jd. (quoting Kulick v. Pocono Downs
Racing Association, 816 F.2d 895, 899 (3d Cr. 1987)). In the instant matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
attempt to name the SSA as a Defendant is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and thus fails to invoke the
Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Davis, 824 F.3d at 350 (quotation marks omitted); see also Lampon-
Paz y. United States Dep’t of Just., 793 F. App’x 137, 141 (3d Cir. 2019).

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file an amended pleading that cures
the jurisdictional defects identified by the Court. Failure to file a Third Amended Complaint within
thirty (30) days of this Opinion will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice. In light of the
previous adjournments afforded Plaintiff in this matter, no further extensions will be considered
by the Court. An appropriate Order will accompany this Opinion.

Ro Kerk SCH os
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 23, 2024

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10656038. Public record. Not legal advice.