Chapman v. Howard University

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAN 17 2013 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia Nathan A. Chapman Jr., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.13 0070 ) Howard University, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs prose complaint and application to proceed

in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff'~ 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. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff is a resident of Baltimore, Maryland, suing Howard University in the District of

Columbia for breach of contract. He demands $60,000. Compl. at 10. Plaintiff has not pleaded

a sufficient amount in controversy to bring this case within the Court's diversity jurisdiction, and

the complaint does not present a federal question. Hence, this case will be dismissed. Plaintiffs

(N) recourse lies, if at all, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. A separate Order

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: January ____jj__, 2013