Dotson v. Central Funding Corp.

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 2, 2013
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2013-1190
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F -I L E D

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A 59 '2 2013 Glerk, U.S. Dist ' t& Karen Dotson, ) Courts for the Dirs“t:rict iii ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.

) l ?> ' l l cl 0 Central Funding Corp., ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s pro se "Complaint" and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant 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).

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing a company in Brentwood, Maryland. She alleges only that she "was given a car loan a few years that [she] believe[s] was a predatory loan" and that she was in a car accident that "cause[d] [her] to be disable[d] now." Compl. at l. Plaintiff states that she has no income and is "waiting for disability to approve me." Id. She

asks this Court only "to give [her] a hand with the case, maybe help me with the money, or help l

me file bankruptcy." Id. at 2. Since the complaint neither presents a federal question nor pleads the requisite amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction, it must be dismissed. A

separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/_ %;…17%'“~

7<-/<> United States District Judg DATE: July §§ , 2013