PLASKON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARK PLASKON

Case No. 2:25-cv-03214-JKS-JBC

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.

ANN M. CUCCI, February 20, 2026

Defendant.

SEMPER, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before this Court upon pro se Plaintiff Mark Plaskon’s (“Plaintiff”)

filing of a Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application”) (ECF

1), and this Court having sua sponte reviewed the Complaint for sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a); and

WHEREAS a district court may allow a plaintiff to commence a civil action without

paying the filing fee—that is, in forma pauperis—so long as the plaintiff submits an affidavit

demonstrating he or she is “unable to pay such fees,” but must dismiss a case that is frivolous,

“fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (e)(2)(B); see Shorter v.

United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021); and

WHEREAS having reviewed Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds leave to proceed in

forma pauperis is warranted, and the application is GRANTED; and

WHEREAS the legal standard for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

is the same as that applied under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Shorter, 12 F.4th

at 371. Pro se complaints are “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quotation

marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). However, a pro se complaint must still comply with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), that “give[s] the defendant

fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration and citation omitted). Factual allegations “must be simple,

concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). The factual allegations in a complaint are generally

accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The

complaint must contain “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; and

WHEREAS the Court dismisses this Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. A district court

has original jurisdiction over an action when there is diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332 or when there is federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity

jurisdiction exists when there is a dispute between citizens of different states alleging an amount

in controversy in excess of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal question jurisdiction exists when

a dispute “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331;

and

WHEREAS here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant intentionally gave him a sexually

transmitted disease. (ECF 1 at 3, 6.) Defendant alleges that both he and Defendant are citizens of

New Jersey. (ECF 1). Accordingly, since Plaintiff and Defendant both appear to be citizens of

New Jersey, there is no diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and

WHEREAS there is also no federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s exact cause of action

against Ms. Cucci is unclear, but he appears to be advancing a claim of common law negligence

or battery, i.e., sounding in tort.1 Such claims do not arise under the Constitution or laws of the

United States. Accordingly, this Court has no basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction, and

the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS on this 20th day of February 2026,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order

to Plaintiff by certified mail; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this matter.

/s/ Jamel K. Semper .

HON. JAMEL K. SEMPER

United States District Judge

Orig: Clerk

cc: James B. Clark, U.S.M.J.

1 A common law claim for battery “requires one to intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with one’s person

without their consent.” Buvel v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., No. 22-6449, 2024 WL 3824025, at *4 (D.N.J. Aug. 15,

2024) (citations omitted). “Negligence involves a breach of a duty of care that causes injury.” Brown v. City of Jersey

City, No. 22-2792, 2023 WL 5578037, at *6 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2023) (quoting Roccisano v. Township of Franklin, No.

11-6558, 2013 WL 3654101, at *11 (D.N.J. July 12, 2013)).