# MAWALLA v. LAKEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION

> District Court, D. New Jersey · July 11, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11098774

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** July 11, 2025
- **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/11098774

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the plaintiff’s assertion of “legal conclusions, unsupported by facts, that his due process rights were violated” was insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NELSON MAWALLA,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 23-02734 (GC) (JBD)
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LAKEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION, et
al.,

Defendants.

CASTNER, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants Lakewood Board of Education,
Lori Babiak, and Spruce Street School’s (collectively, the LBOE Defendants) Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 51) and Defendant Seman-Tov, Inc.’s1 Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 61) pro se Plaintiff
Nelson Mawalla’s Third Amended Complaint (TAC) (ECF No. 52) pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure (Rule) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposed. (ECF Nos. 62, 63.) Neither
Defendant replied. The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and decides the
matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For the reasons
set forth below, and other good cause shown, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED.

1 Defendant Seman-Tov, Inc. is improperly pled as Seman-Tov School Bus. (See ECF No.
44-3 at 1.)
I. BACKGROUND2
A. Procedural Background
On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff brought this action against the LBOE Defendants and Seman-
Tov. (See ECF No. 1, 7, 9.) LBOE Defendants moved to dismiss. (ECF No. 20.) The Court
granted LBOE Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, finding that Plaintiff failed to (1) identify a federal
basis for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (ECF No. 25 at 4-5.3)

On August 9, 2024, Plaintiff requested that the Clerk of the Court enter default against
Seman-Tov for failure to respond. (ECF No. 28.) On September 18, 2024, the Clerk entered the
default as to Seman-Tov. (ECF entry dated September 18, 2024.) Plaintiff subsequently moved
for default judgment against Seman-Tov and filed two Amended Motions for Default Judgment.
(ECF Nos. 40-42.) In response, Seman-Tov filed a Cross-Motion to Set Aside Default. (ECF No.
44.) On April 30, 2025, the Court entered an Order and Opinion denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default Judgment and granting Seman-Tov’s Cross-Motion to Set Aside Default. (ECF Nos. 55
& 56.)
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC) on August 20, 2024, asserting claims

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state statutes. (ECF No. 31.) On August 23, 2024, the LBOE
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. (ECF No. 33.) The Court granted the LBOE

2 On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all facts as true, but
courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citation and quotations omitted).
3 Page numbers for record cites (i.e., “ECF Nos.”) refer to the page numbers stamped by the
Court’s e-filing system and not the internal pagination of the parties.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the FAC, finding that Plaintiff again failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. (ECF Nos. 48, 49.)
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 26, 2025. (ECF No. 50.) The
LBOE Defendants moved to dismiss on March 28, 2025. (ECF No. 51.) Three days later, on
March 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed the TAC. (ECF No. 52.) In response, the LBOE Defendants filed

a letter on April 1, 2025, stating that “[u]pon review of this apparent third amended pleading, it is
substantially similar to the one that is the subject of the [LBOE Defendants’] pending motion to
dismiss[ ]. [The LBOE] Defendants incorporate the arguments set forth in their pending motion
to dismiss by reference.” (ECF No. 53.) The Court likewise adopts the TAC as the operative
pleading. On June 2, 2025, Seman-Tov filed a Motion to Dismiss the TAC. (ECF No. 61.)
B. Factual Background
In his TAC4, Plaintiff makes two allegations: (1) that his civil rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment were “abused by [D]efendants,” and (2) “[D]efendants[’] action[s] do not abide by
[the United States] Constitution.” (ECF No. 52 at 2.) The rest of the TAC includes a recitation of
various rights and legal duties that appear unrelated to the facts of this case. For example, Plaintiff

states that “[p]ursuant [to the] 7th Amendment, Plaintiff is guarantee[d] . . . the right to a jury trial
in federal civil cases.” (Id. at 1.) He also contends that the “14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, ratified in 1868, grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United
States . . . and ensures equal protection under the laws, extending the Bill of Rights to the states.”

4 This Opinion presumes familiarity with the Court’s previous decisions in this case, (see
ECF Nos. 25 & 48), which provide a full recitation of facts. Those decisions can also be found at
Mawalla v. Lakewood Bd. of Educ., Civ. No. 23-02734, 2024 WL 3361398 (D.N.J. July 10, 2024)
and Mawalla v. Lakewood Bd. of Educ., Civ. Civ. No. 23-02734, 2025 WL 624484, at *4 (D.N.J.
Feb. 26, 2025).
(Id.) Thus, Plaintiff “stress[es] [that] according[ ] to [the United States] [C]onstitution nobody is
immune . . . .” (Id. at 2.)
Finally, under a section entitled “Legal Duty of Care,” Plaintiff provides “a non-exhaustive
list of ways to determine if the Defendant owed a duty of care to [ ] [P]laintiff,” including: (1)
“Defendant engaged in the creation of risk which resulted in [ ] Plaintiff[’s] harm;” (2) “Defendant

volunteer[ed] to protect [ ] Plaintiff from harm, possibly preventing others from protecting [ ]
Plaintiff;” and (3) “Defendant knows or should know that their conduct will harm [ ] Plaintiff[.] A
person like Plaintiff should not feel[ ] inferior or [a] low class citizen [because] [the U.S.]
Constitution protect[s] him/her.” (Id.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Rule 12(b)(1) – Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Rule 12(b)(1) permits a defendant to move at any time to dismiss the complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction on either facial or factual grounds. Gould Elec. Inc. v. United States,
220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000). Seman-Tov raises a facial challenge. 5 (ECF No. 61-1 at 7.) A
facial challenge asserts that “the complaint, on its face, does not allege sufficient grounds to
establish subject matter jurisdiction.” Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424, 438 (D.N.J.

1999). On a facial challenge, a court “must only consider the allegations of the complaint and
documents attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gould Elec. Inc., 220 F.3d
at 176. “A court considering a facial challenge construes the allegations in the complaint as true
and determines whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Arosa Solar Energy Sys., Inc. v. Solar,
Civ. No. 18-1340, 2021 WL 1196405, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2021). Regardless of the type of

5 The LBOE Defendants do not challenge the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in their
Motion to Dismiss. (See ECF No. 51.)
challenge, the plaintiff bears the “burden of proving that the court has subject matter jurisdiction.”
Cottrell v. Heritages Dairy Stores, Inc., Civ. No. 09-1743, 2010 WL 3908567, at *2 (D.N.J. Sep.
30, 2010) (citing Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891).
B. Rule 12(b)(6) – Failure to State a Claim
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts “accept the factual allegations in

the complaint as true, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and assess whether
the complaint and the exhibits attached to it ‘contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Wilson v. USI Ins. Serv. LLC, 57 F.4th 131, 140 (3d Cir. 2023) (quoting
Watters v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of City of Scranton, 975 F.3d 406, 412 (3d Cir. 2020)). “A claim is
facially plausible ‘when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Clark v. Coupe, 55
F.4th 167, 178 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Mammana v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 934 F.3d 368, 372 (3d
Cir. 2019)). When assessing the factual allegations in a complaint, courts “disregard legal
conclusions and recitals of the elements of a cause of action that are supported only by mere
conclusory statements.” Wilson, 57 F.4th at 140 (citing Oakwood Lab’ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d

892, 903 (3d Cir. 2021)). The defendant bringing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion bears the burden of
“showing that a complaint fails to state a claim.” In re Plavix Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab.
Litig. (No. II), 974 F.3d 228, 231 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 349
(3d Cir. 2016)).
C. Rule 8(a) - Pleading Requirements
Rule 8(a) does not require a complaint to contain detailed factual allegations. Still, “a
plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original); see Phillips v. Cnty.
of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Rule 8 requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket
assertion, of entitlement to relief.” (citation and some quotation marks omitted)). Thus, the
complaint’s factual allegations must be sufficient to raise a plaintiff’s right to relief above a
speculative level, so that a claim is “plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see, e.g., W.
Run Student Hous. Assocs., LLC v. Huntington Nat. Bank, 712 F.3d 165, 169 (3d Cir. 2013). The

facial plausibility standard is met “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Though “[t]he plausibility
standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that
a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.
D. Pro Se Leniency
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and “[t]he obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s
pleadings is well-established.” Higgs v. Att’y Gen. of the United States, 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d.Cir
2011) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-
21 (1972)). “‘Courts are to construe complaints so ‘as to do substantial justice,’ Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(f), keeping in mind that pro se complaints in particular should be construed liberally.” Alston v.
Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004). “Liberal construction does not, however, require the
Court to credit a pro se plaintiff’s ‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions.’” Grohs v. Yatauro, 984
F. Supp. 2d 273, 282 (D.N.J. 2013) (quoting Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906
(3d Cir. 1997)). “[P]ro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support
a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Seman-Tov argues that the TAC does not provide any federal basis for the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. (See ECF No. 61-1.) The Court agrees. While Plaintiff asserts various rights
deriving from the United States Constitution in the TAC, he fails to include factual allegations for
this Court to infer that Defendants’ conduct violated those constitutional rights. Mere references

to the U.S. Constitution, without more, is insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Hillman v. Borough of Collingdale, Civ. No. 22-2260, 2023 WL 2400740, at *2 (3d Cir. Mar.
8, 2023) (finding that the plaintiff’s “vague, conclusory allegations” were insufficient to establish
subject matter jurisdiction, and that plaintiff’s “passing references to § 1983 [do not form a basis
for subject matter jurisdiction] as he makes no factual allegations that could conceivably suggest
that his federal constitutional rights were violated”); Kalick v. United States, 35 F. Supp. 3d 639,
646 (D.N.J. 2014), aff'd, 604 F. App’x 108 (3d Cir. 2015) (finding that the plaintiff’s assertion of
“legal conclusions, unsupported by facts, that his due process rights were violated” was insufficient
to confer subject matter jurisdiction); see also Ctr. for Wildlife Ethics, Inc. v. Clark, 325 F. Supp.
3d 911, 914–15 (N.D. Ind. 2018) (considering the question of “whether the somewhat haphazard

references to the U.S. Constitution in the [plaintiff’s] complaint, without more, [confers] subject
matter jurisdiction? When faced with similar questions, district courts both inside and outside this
circuit have answered this question in the negative, finding any potential federal question non-
essential and thus an insufficient basis to confer federal jurisdiction) (collecting cases).
As a result, “the [TAC], on its face, does not allege sufficient grounds to establish subject
matter jurisdiction.” Iwanowa, 67 F. Supp. 2d at 438. That defect alone warrants dismissal of this
action under Rule 12(b)(1).
B. Failure to State a Claim
Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s TAC has failed to cure the pleading
deficiencies outlined in the Court’s prior decisions and provides only conclusory legal allegations.
(See ECF Nos. 25 & 48.)
The TAC contains only two allegations that, even when construed liberally, fail to state a
claim. Plaintiff alleges that “[pursuant to the 14th Amendment” his civil rights were “abused by

[D]efendants” and that “[D]efendants[’] action[s] do not abide by [the United States]
Constitution,” which “ensures equal protection under the laws.” (ECF No. 52 at 2.) The Court
construes Plaintiff as asserting a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection
Clause provides that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. To state a cognizable claim for denial of
equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he is a member of a
protected class, (2) he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals, and (3) this
disparate treatment was based on his membership in the protected class. Kaul v. Christie, 372 F.
Supp. 3d 206, 254 (D.N.J. 2019) (citing Kasper v. Cnty. of Bucks, 514 F. App’x 210, 214-15 (3d

Cir. 2013)).
The TAC fails to allege any of these elements. Indeed, Plaintiff’s bare assertions do not
even provide basic facts such as what injuries were sustained, which specific Defendants were
involved, when the alleged wrongful conduct occurred, or any other facts necessary to support a
viable claim. See Silvero v. New Jersey, Civ. No. 13-6599, 2014 WL 2937933, at *4 (D.N.J. June
30, 2014) (finding that the complaint, consisting of “conclusory statements of law, [and]
unsupported by any factual detail,” failed to state a claim where plaintiff provided no information
regarding dates, identities of individuals, the injuries sustained, or other supporting facts); Molson
v. DiSantis, Civ. No. 18-351, 2018 WL 5885896, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2018) (dismissing a
complaint in which a pro se plaintiff “provides no averments as to what exactly was done to [the
p]laintiff, when it was done, and by whom it was done”); see also Yu-Chin Chang v. Upright Fin.
Corp., Civ. No. 19- 18414, 2020 WL 473649, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2020) (emphasizing that “a
complaint may not indiscriminately attribute wrongdoing to a group of defendants, leaving [the
defendants] to guess as to who allegedly did what” and collecting cases).

The remainder of the TAC consists entirely of abstract legal recitations such as “members
of society have entered a social contract that includes a duty to not cause harm to other[s]” and the
“7th Amendment . . . guarantees Plaintiff the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases where the
value in controversy exceeds $20.” (ECF No. 52 at 1-2.) While the Court must accept a
complaint’s well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, it
may disregard any legal conclusions such as the ones asserted here. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside,
578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009).
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss the TAC with prejudice as any
further amendment would be futile. See Sexton v. N.J. Dep’t of Corr., Civ. No. 21-20404, 2024

WL 4615763, at *19 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2024), aff’d, Civ. No. 24-3118, 2025 WL 1482788, at *3 (3d
Cir. May 23, 2025) (dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s claims with prejudice when any further
amendment would be futile).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and other good cause shown, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
(ECF Nos. 51 & 61) are GRANTED. Plaintiff's TAC (ECF No. 52) is DISMISSED with
prejudice with respect to all Defendants. An appropriate Order follows.

Dated: July 11, 2025 Googe Cater
GEORGETTE CASTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11098774. Public record. Not legal advice.