October 4, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-2151
ALLAN O. DENCHFIELD,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JULIUS E. WALLER,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Allan O. Denchfield on brief pro se.
Per Curiam. Plaintiff-appellant Allan O.
Denchfield appeals pro se from the dismissal of his complaint
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). We affirm.
It was appropriate for the district court, sua
sponte, to issue a show cause order requiring Denchfield to
explain why his complaint should not be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Cf. In re Recticel Foam Corp.,
859 F.2d 1000, 1002 (1st Cir. 1988) ("It is too elementary to
warrant citation of authority that a court has an obligation
to inquire sua sponte into its subject matter jurisdiction,
and to proceed no further if such jurisdiction is wanting.").
The facts alleged in the complaint do not confer federal
question jurisdiction.1 And, although Denchfield invoked
1
diversity jurisdiction and indicated on the civil cover sheet
that he was seeking $400,000.00, the complaint is devoid of
any specific allegations supporting an amount in controversy
in excess of $50,000.00.
Once challenged, a party seeking to invoke
diversity jurisdiction has the burden of alleging with
sufficient particularity the facts indicating that it is not
a legal certainty that the claim involves less than the
jurisdictional amount. Department of Recreation & Sports v.
1Contrary to Denchfield's suggestion, the complaint does
1
not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Most notably, the
defendant is a private citizen, and the complaint fails to
allege facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant
acted under "color of law."
-2-
World Boxing Ass'n, 942 F.2d 84, 88 (1st Cir. 1991).
Denchfield's response to the show cause order was egregiously
late and, we think, failed to meet this burden. Accordingly,
we find no error in the dismissal. We add that we find no
abuse of discretion in the district court's failure to grant
Denchfield's belated motion for appointment of counsel. See
DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 24 (1st Cir. 1991)
(explaining that we will overturn the denial of a request for
appointed counsel in a civil case only if the record, taken
as a whole, reflects a manifest abuse of the trial court's
broad discretion).
Affirmed.
-3-