Hawks v. Davies
This text of Hawks v. Davies (Hawks v. Davies) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTINA HAWKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-1072 (UNA) ) MATTHEW DAVIES, ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court GRANTS the application
and DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice 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 these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available
when a “federal question” is presented or when the parties are of diverse citizenship and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. “For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there
must be complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that the plaintiff may not be a
citizen of the same state as any defendant.” Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C.
2007) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)). 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).
As far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff, who resides in the District of Columbia,
attempts to bring legal malpractice and other tort claims against a Defendant for whom she
provides a District of Columbia address. This case does not present a federal question. Because
1 both parties appear to reside or conduct business in the District of Columbia, and because the
amount in controversy does not exceed the $75,000 threshold, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate
diversity jurisdiction. Finally, the one word mention of “discrimination” is insufficient to invoke
the federal antidiscrimination laws.
A separate Order will issue.
/s/ RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge DATE: June 10, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hawks v. Davies, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawks-v-davies-dcd-2025.