Brown v. Hill

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT `|AN 3 o 2014 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C(‘;l‘?:'§ ¥ldrSt-“D|T)iiri§t_ 8; Bfa¢ékr'uptzl:’y e s nc o o um ia

Melvin Brown, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) civil A¢ii@n No. /»}¢ - /§¢O

Sandra Hill el al., ) )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperz`s. The Court will grant the plaintiff s application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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 or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 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. l2(h)(3). l

The plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing eleven District of Columbia

residents for monetary damages exceeding $4.6 million. The complaint does not present a

federal question, and it does not provide a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are

not of diverse citizenship Therefore, this case will be dismissed.l A separate Order

mi

Ur»{it

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: January ,20l4

' Presumably, the plaintiff may seek redress in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.