Ceasar v. Carnegie Institute

District of Columbia

Ceasar v. Carnegie Institute

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 26, 2012

DocketCivil Action No. 2012-0758

StatusPublished

This text of Ceasar v. Carnegie Institute (Ceasar v. Carnegie Institute) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ceasar v. Carnegie Institute, (D.D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 5 29 2 ' t z

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIer/.~ ~

ur!s B€%."¢é;ru;) , » § ~'l-:‘,' 01 C`()i`.(}!";‘}b’;é-, MAURICE CEASAR, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v_ ) Civil Action N0. 12~'+‘53 ) THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the C0urt on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § l33 l. In addition, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § l332(a). Plaintiff purports to bring a civil rights claim against a private entity, and thus fails to present a federal question under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because this provision applies only to "person[ s] who [act], under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia." Id. Because all the parties are in the District of Columbia, plaintiff fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opini0n.

DATE;[Z /%2/ §§ w 15 /7/

United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 5 29 2 ' t z

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIer/.~ ~

ur!s B€%."¢é;ru;) , » § ~'l-:‘,' 01 C`()i`.(}!";‘}b’;é-, MAURICE CEASAR, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v_ ) Civil Action N0. 12~'+‘53 ) THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the C0urt on plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § l33 l. In addition, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § l332(a). Plaintiff purports to bring a civil rights claim against a private entity, and thus fails to present a federal question under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because this provision applies only to "person[ s] who [act], under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia." Id. Because all the parties are in the District of Columbia, plaintiff fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opini0n.

DATE;[Z /%2/ §§ w 15 /7/

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ceasar v. Carnegie Institute, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ceasar-v-carnegie-institute-dcd-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack