Cobb v. Gray

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 29, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-1081
• Status: Published

Opinion

§*‘»"“;§§..ED

}U:`Ȏ 'Z 9 2912

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~Cie.~;<_` L;_;, \r;,;,i,,ur & Bm,(r,,ptcy

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA L\J¢.rft';» fm the Usstrict of C<)hzmbia DONALD L. COBB, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1

) _ VINCENT C. GRAY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the plaintiff s application to proceed informal pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.

Plaintiff brings this action against the current and two former Mayors of the District of Columbia, current and former members of the Council of the District of Columbia, various District of Columbia govemment employees, and members of the District of Columbia Board of Professional Engineers, among other defendants, alleging irregularities in the administration of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination on April ll, 2008. See Compl. at 2-3, 26-36.

F ederal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 133 l. Plaintiff purports to bring this action under 15 U.S.C. § 45 et seq.. see Compl. at l, and thus asserts that his "claim involves a federal question," z`d. at 12. The federal statute on which his claim relies, however, confers no private right of action on an individual. See Halloway v. Bristol-Myers Corp., 485 F. 2d 986, 1002

(D.C. Cir. 1973); Karpojj’v. Holladay Corp., 377 A.Zd 52, 53-54 (D.C. 1977). Accordingly, the

\\§

complaint and this action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.l An Order

accompanies this l\/Iemorandum Opinion.

//F/'

/ _/ w // //'//,, l / ,/",./'/r/ DATE; ,'}A/, z ,,j // ~,~///"~/'“ ’; ‘” § " j / United States District Judge

l ln addition, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens ofdifferent states. See 28 U.S.C. § l332(a). Plaintiff may intend to rely on diversity jurisdiction to bring claims against the State of California and employees of its Department of Transportation. See Compl. at 5-l l, l5, 53-59. Although there appears to be diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and the California defendants, this complaint does not demand damages in any amount_ such that diversity

jurisdiction is not shown.