The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. CURTIS JOYNER
On March 28, 1994, this Court issued an order on the pro se plaintiffs in this action, William Perkins and Walter Perkins, Jr. to show cause why the above-captioned case should not be dismissed as frivolous. Pursuant to that order, on April 6, 1994 William Perkins only appeared before the undersigned at which time he acknowledged that he alone signed and filed the complaint commencing this lawsuit against what appears to be the Social Security Administration, his aunt, Ethel Rice and the "Estate Court" in Brooklyn, New York. In the interests of brevity, we shall defer from an in-depth discussion of the improper nature of William Perkins' activities in representing his brother without a legal license to do so and shall instead treat this matter as one involving William Perkins only.
According to Mr. Perkins' representations at the April 6, 1994 hearing and the complaint(s) filed in this matter, he is seeking to recover some unknown amount of Social Security Benefits which were purportedly paid over to the estate or probate court in Brooklyn, New York upon his father's death in 1978. Ethel Rice apparently is a New York resident who was the sister of Mr. Perkins' late father and the administratrix of his estate. Mr. Perkins contends that this Court has jurisdiction to act in this matter by virtue of the fact that (1) the Social Security Administration paid over the benefits in question; (2) he is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and (3) Mr. Perkins' father lived and worked in Pennsylvania for more than twenty years. Evidently, Mr. Perkins does not know where his father was living or was domiciled at the time of his death. He has also disputed and challenged the docketing of this action as a social security appeal.
The law is clear that the district courts have jurisdiction to act in matters involving citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $ 50,000 and in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See : 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391:
(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on
diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided
by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where
any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same
State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part
of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the
action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which the
defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction ...