Flores v. Guadamud

District of Columbia

Flores v. Guadamud

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMay 13, 2013

DocketCivil Action No. 2013-0688

StatusPublished

This text of Flores v. Guadamud (Flores v. Guadamud) 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

Flores v. Guadamud, (D.D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

mt

F1LEo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA MAY 1 3 2013 C|erk, U.S. District and xavier Flores, ) Bankruptcy Courts ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) civil A¢ri@n No. ,, [0 g/

l 13 5 Mariana Guadamud et al ., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R, Civ. P. l2(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

Plaintiff, a homeless individual who submitted more than 30 cryptic complaints within the first two weeks of March alone, sues various high-level political figures, including President Barack Obarna, former President George H.W. Bush, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He alleges only that "I have not receive[d] payment for work." Compl. at 2. Plaintiff seeks "to enforce" the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 el seq., but he has not stated any facts suggesting that he has been discriminated against because of a disability.

The law is clear that "federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise

within their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of l

merit.’ " Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-7 (l974) (quoting Newburyport Water C0. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)); accord Tooley v. Napolitarzo, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ("A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it "is ‘ patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.") (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The instant complaint satisfies this standard and, therefore, will

be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: May\_ 72 ,2013

limited E§tates District Judge

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

mt

F1LEo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA MAY 1 3 2013 C|erk, U.S. District and xavier Flores, ) Bankruptcy Courts ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) civil A¢ri@n No. ,, [0 g/

l 13 5 Mariana Guadamud et al ., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R, Civ. P. l2(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

Plaintiff, a homeless individual who submitted more than 30 cryptic complaints within the first two weeks of March alone, sues various high-level political figures, including President Barack Obarna, former President George H.W. Bush, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He alleges only that "I have not receive[d] payment for work." Compl. at 2. Plaintiff seeks "to enforce" the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 el seq., but he has not stated any facts suggesting that he has been discriminated against because of a disability.

The law is clear that "federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise

within their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of l

merit.’ " Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-7 (l974) (quoting Newburyport Water C0. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)); accord Tooley v. Napolitarzo, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ("A complaint may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it "is ‘ patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.") (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The instant complaint satisfies this standard and, therefore, will

be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: May\_ 72 ,2013

limited E§tates District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Flores v. Guadamud, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-guadamud-dcd-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack