Dubose v. Horning Brothers

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 29, 2009
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2009-1406
• Status: Published

Opinion

®

FILED

JUL 29 2009

C|€rk, u.s. Dismcc and Ba"k"'-'Pt€y Courts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Deborah-Denise Dub0se, )

Plaintiff, j

v. j civil Acci

Defendants. j

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint

Plaintiff, who lists a Washington, D.C. address on the complaint, has filed a complaint against a defendant with a Washington, D.C. address. The complaint alleges that she has applied to live in a certain residential property, and that her current landlord gives her bad references to prevent her from leaving. The complaint does not indicate what relationship the defendant has to the plaintiff or to the facts alleged in the complaint. See Compl. at l.

Unlike state courts of general jurisdiction, federal district courts have limited jurisdiction A federal district court has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, however, the facts alleged do not suggest claims that arise under the Constitution or the laws or treaties of the United States. A federal district court also has jurisdiction over civil actions in matters where the controversy

exceeds $75,00() and is between citizens of different States. See 28 C.F.R. §l332(a). But here it

appears that both parties are citizens of the District of Columbia, and the plaintiff does not identify an amount in controversy. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

zvv>tc.a'*g»~¢wf€c

Date: 7 X¢(_f/oi United/States District Judge