See Jemzura v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., (Case No. 91-CV-0843) (Cholakis, J.) applying Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 535, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1378, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974). Accordingly, plaintiff must posit either a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or a diversity issue under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) for this Court to entertain his claim against PSC or NYSEG. Id. Here, since plaintiff has not asserted a diversity issue against either of the defendants, the Court will only hear the instant action if “a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987); Cf. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff contends that PSC and NY-SEG’s
holding that where no colorable claim can be construed from a complaint it should be dismissed holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding that a pro se complaint  should not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief recognizing the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief holding that a complaint will not be dismissed unless it appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim