David ROCKEFELLER, Appellant v. COMCAST CORPORATION; Brian Roberts, President/CEO of Comcast.
No. 10-4494.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
April 18, 2011.
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Feb. 28, 2011.
On October 22, 2010, Solomon filed two motions in District Court challenging the District Court‘s jurisdiction over his criminal proceedings. Noting that we had affirmed the judgment against Solomon on July 23, 2010, the District Court denied Solomon‘s motions. This appeal followed.
Solomon‘s first motion, entitled “Motion to Dismiss Proceeding, Charges, and/or Information Due to Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Violation of Due Process,” sets forth general jurisdictional principles without any explanation of how they apply to Solomon‘s case. Solomon‘s second motion, entitled “Petition to Challenge: In Rem, In Personam, Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” is similar to his first motion and further asserts that the District Judge must prove he is a “lawfully established judge” and the prosecutor must prove his authority to prosecute. Absent such proof, Solomon contends his judgment is void.
It is not clear what authority Solomon relies upon in raising his postjudgment jurisdictional challenge. To the extent Solomon‘s motions were properly before the District Court, he failed to articulate an argument calling into question the District Court‘s jurisdiction over his criminal proceedings. We find no error in the District Court‘s denial of these motions.
Accordingly, because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
Before: MCKEE, Circuit Judge, ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
David Rockefeller appeals pro se from an order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court.
Rockefeller filed a complaint against Comcast Corporation (“Comcast“) and Brian Roberts, Chairman and CEO of Comcast, alleging that Comcast damaged his property, committed fraud and theft, overbilled for services, and fraudulently advertised. Rockefeller demanded $5,000 in damages.
The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The District Court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not allege facts supporting a federal question and the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. Rockefeller appeals.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to
The District Court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 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).
Federal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint. Club Comanche, Inc. v. Gov‘t of V.I., 278 F.3d 250, 259 (3d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). In his complaint, Rockefeller alleged that Comcast damaged his property, committed fraud and theft, overbilled for services, and fraudulently advertised. None of these allegations presented a federal question pursuant to
Although it appears that there is diversity of citizenship, as Rockefeller is a citizen of New Jersey and Comcast is incorporated in Pennsylvania, the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000. The complaint demands only $5,000. Thus, Rockefeller cannot establish diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court‘s order dismissing Rockefeller‘s complaint.