Yakov Rokhvarg v. the Department of Community Affairs, State of New Jersey, Joseph V. Doria, Jr.,…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2786
___________
YAKOV ROKHVARG,
Appellant
v.
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JOSEPH V. DORIA, JR., Commissioner;
THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN, STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
NICOLAS SACCO, Mayor
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 09-01821)
District Judge: Honorable Faith S. Hochberg
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 20, 2010
Before: SMITH, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed February 2, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Yakov Rokhvarg appeals from an order of the District Court granting the

-- 1 of 4 --

Rokhvarg has proceeded with this case pro se from its inception.1
2
Defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1). We will affirm.
I.
In Rokhvarg’s complaint he alleged that the Defendants, two local public officials,
conspired to ignore the deterioration of an apartment complex owned and managed by
Rokhvarg, thereby jeopardizing the health and safety of the tenants in that complex.
Rokhvarg requested the following relief: 1) that the Defendants be ordered to
immediately relocate the tenants; 2) compensatory damages in the amount of $258,000 for
the “intentional physical destruction” of the complex “as a result of the conspiracy”; 3)
compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000 for each tenant “for playing ‘Russian
Roulette’ (A game of probability) with the tenants lives”; and 4) counsel fees and costs.1
Defendants moved to dismiss Rokhvarg’s complaint, alternatively pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court granted
the motion, finding that even drawing all reasonable inferences in Rokhvarg’s favor, “the
Complaint raises no federal grounds upon which relief may be granted.” The District
Court declined to give Rokhvarg leave to amend his complaint, determining that any
amendment would be futile. The District Court concluded that because it was dismissing
Rokhvarg’s complaint, his “Order to Show Cause with Emergency Safety Relief” was

-- 2 of 4 --

3
also denied. Rokhvarg appealed.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See CNA v. United States,
535 F.3d 132, 139 (3d Cir. 2008). We review de novo the District Court’s grant of a Rule
12(b)(1) motion. See Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F.3d 625, 626 (3d Cir. 2009). We
review for abuse of discretion the District Court’s decision to deny Rokhvarg leave to
amend his complaint. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir.
2002).
III.
We find no error by the District Court in the proceedings below. The jurisdiction
of federal district courts is limited: it only can be exercised over civil actions that arise
under federal law (i.e., federal question jurisdiction), or those that arise between citizens
of different states where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 (i.e., diversity
jurisdiction). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a). For purposes of federal question
jurisdiction, a claim arises under federal law if it is apparent from the face of the
complaint that the cause of action was created by federal law. See Joyce v. RJR Nabisco
Holdings Corp., 126 F.3d 166, 171 (3d Cir. 1997). For diversity jurisdiction, a
complainant must plead that he is a citizen of a particular state and that the defendants are
citizens of a different state. See Grand Union Supermarkets of the V.I., Inc. v. H.E.
Lockhart Mgmt., 316 F.3d 408, 410 (3d Cir. 2003).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
The District Court clearly lacked diversity jurisdiction over the parties, all of
whom are citizens of New Jersey. In addition, the District Court correctly determined that
Rokhvarg’s complaint did not advance a cognizable claim under federal law, thus
precluding the District Court from exercising federal question jurisdiction. As a result, it
was proper for the District Court to grant the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rokhvarg’s contention on appeal that the
Defendants should be prosecuted for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (criminalizing
conspiracy to impede the exercise of federal rights) is not a cognizable federal claim in a
civil suit, cf. United States v. Philadelphia, 644 F.2d 187, 199 (3d Cir. 1980), and it does
not demonstrate that the jurisdictional defects in Rokhvarg’s complaint can be
ameliorated. Therefore, the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to
give Rokhvarg leave to amend his complaint.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order. Rokhvarg’s motions are
denied.

-- 4 of 4 --