MITMAN v. MITMAN

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-13820
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ERIC MITMAN, Case No. 25–cv–13820–ESK–SAK Plaintiff,

v. OPINION AND ORDER TRACY MITMAN, et al., Defendants.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on plaintiff’s complaint (Complaint) (ECF No. 1); and the Court finding, 1. Courts have an obligation to assure itself of jurisdiction at all stages of a litigation. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward Trucking Corp., 48 F.3d 742, 750 (3d Cir. 1995) (noting that “federal courts have an ever-present obligation to satisfy themselves of their subject-matter jurisdiction and to decide the issue sua sponte”). Thus, a court has the authority to sua sponte dismiss a case over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction at any time. 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). 2. Federal claims lack subject-matter jurisdiction when the claim is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions …, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)). Claims that “clearly appear[ ] to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” should be dismissed. Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991)). In other words, courts can dismiss claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when the complaint is “completely devoid of merit” or “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Yoder v. Tompkins, 671 F. App’x 27, 29 (3d Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal of civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where the pro se plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to show the deprivation of a federal right or that the defendants were state actors). 3. This action arises from plaintiff’s divorce from defendant Tracy Mitman. (ECF No. 1 pp. 1, 2.) Plaintiff asserts that Tracy and Tracy’s attorney, defendant Alice Cupaiolo, “weaponize[d] the legal system to harm, intimidate, and deprive [him] of his constitutionally protected rights.” (Id. p. 1.) Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. (Id. p. 5.) 4. To succeed on a 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federally secured right.” Durham v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, No. 22–05482, 2025 WL 642469, at *4 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2025). Defendants are not state actors. Rather they are private individuals named in this action for their adversarial roles in plaintiff’s divorce proceedings. See Wolf v. New Jersey, No. 19–16979, 2023 WL 2367991, at *10 (D.N.J. Mar. 6, 2023), aff’d, No. 23–1635, 2024 WL 5154023 (3d Cir. Dec. 18, 2024). 5. To state a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim for conspiracy to deprive a person of their rights, a plaintiff must allege that the “conspiracy [was] motivated by ‘some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.’” Mendez v. New Jersey State Lottery Comm’n, 532 F. App’x 41, 45 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Farber v. City of Paterson, 440 F.3d 131, 135 (3d Cir. 2006)). Plaintiff fails to allege such a motivation or sufficient facts to support this claim. Since no 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violations were plausibly alleged, a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 cannot exist. 6. Plaintiff’s claims are thus deemed to be frivolous. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting that while a pro se plaintiff should generally be provided the opportunity to cure deficiencies in a complaint, this rule is inapplicable where granting an opportunity to amend would be futile); Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting that leave to amend must be granted in civil rights actions, “unless such an amendment would be inequitable or futile”). Accordingly, IT IS on this 29th day of July 2025 ORDERED that: 1. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action and send a copy of this Order to plaintiff by regular mail.

/s/ Edward S. Kiel EDWARD S. KIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE