IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 23, 2007
ANTHONY WHITE, PLAINTIFF
BRITTANY GULDEN, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2007, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), and the complaint (Doc. 1), and it appearing that plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee in the above-captioned case, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915 ("[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets . . . that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor."), and the court finding that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims,*fn1 see Horn & Hardart Sys. v. Hunter, No. Civ. A. 04-5117, 2005 WL 1522266, at *1 (D.N.J. June 27, 2005) ("Jurisdiction is a preliminary issue that may be raised by a district court to ensure that a case properly belongs in federal court."); Daily v. City of Phila., 98 F. Supp. 2d 634, 636 (E.D. Pa. 2000) ("Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the court sua sponte."); see also Meritcare v. St. Paul Mercury Ins., 166 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir. 1999) ("A federal court has the obligation to address a question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte."), abrogated on other grounds by Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah, 545 U.S. 546 (2005), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.
2. The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Any appeal from this order is DEEMED frivolous and not in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge