Beasley v. Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: December 5, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2940
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL BEASLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-02940 (UNA) ) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint

and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will grant

the motion and dismiss the case.

The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited. Under 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1332, federal jurisdiction is available 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 plead facts that bring the suit within the court’s jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), or

suffer dismissal of the case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., sued the D.C. Department of Corrections for an

alleged accident that occurred while he “was in custody” and being transported “from the court

house to the [D.C.] Jail.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4. Invoking the diversity statute, id. at 3, Plaintiff

seeks damages exceeding $1 million, id. at 4.

“[G]enerally, bodies within the District of Columbia government . . . are not suable as

separate entities,” Sobin v. District of Columbia, F. Supp. 3d , 210 (D.D.C. 2020), and the Department of Corrections is no exception. See Carter-El v. District of Columbia Dep’t. of

Corrections, 893 F. Supp. 2d 243, 247 (D.D.C. 2012) (“[T]he Department of Corrections is not an

entity capable of being sued separate from the District of Columbia.”). Even if substituted,

however, the District of Columbia is “a stateless entity” that “is not subject to diversity

jurisdiction,” Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1987), and the complaint

does not present a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring jurisdiction over civil actions

“arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”). Consequently, this case

will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/_____________ ANA C. REYES Date: December 5, 2024 United States District Judge