Allen v. Avon

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DERRICK ALLEN, SR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-00277 (UNA) ) ) KELDA DAVIS AVON, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the

complaint.

The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth

generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available

only when a “federal question” is presented, id. § 1331, or the parties are of diverse citizenship

and the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and

costs,” id. § 1332(a). A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring

the suit within the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants

dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff, an unhoused citizen of Washington, D.C., sues his son’s mother whom he

identifies as a citizen of North Carolina. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges, to the extent

intelligible, that Defendant “plotted to frame” him and “kept” him “from legally getting a firearm.”

Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff suggests that while he was incarcerated in North Carolina, Defendant prevented

him from bonding with his son, forged his name, and stole his mail. Id. at 4. As the basis of jurisdiction, Plaintiff checks the box for diversity jurisdiction but also cites

the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments. Id. at 2. Because the complaint does not involve

governmental action, any claim arising under the Constitution fails. See Woytowicz v. George

Washington University, 327 F. Supp. 3d 105, 115 (D.D.C. 2018) (“[I]n order to raise a

constitutional claim against a private [person], a plaintiff must allege that the . . . individual was a

state or governmental actor or was engaging in state or government action.”) (collecting cases)).

To establish diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff sets the amount in controversy at “seven

billion.” Compl. at 3. He actually seeks “Gun rights, to be with [his] son or son(s), and [to] be

compensated” generally. Id. (Relief). Nevertheless, a court may dismiss a diversity action when,

as here, it “appear[s] to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the [required]

jurisdictional amount.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938).

Plaintiff does not “articulate either the required factual or legal bases for [any] relief,” Karim-

Panahi v. U.S. Cong., Senate & House of Representatives, 105 F. App’x. 270, 274 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

(per curiam), much less for an amount exceeding $75,000. Consequently, this case will be

dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/____________ TANYA S. CHUTKAN Date: April 8, 2025 United States District Judge