Honore-Richardson v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 17, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-0917
• Status: Published

Opinion

l\\§

FILED

MAY 1 7 2311

Cl€l’k. U.S. District & Bankruptcy courts for the District of columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA

Delliccia Sherrell Honore-Richardson, Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No.

11 U91?

Superior Court of the District of Columbia et al.,

Defendants.

§§/S§/§/&%/§/S/§R/§/

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed 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).

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).

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and "family court counsel for child abuse and neglect." Compl. Caption. The complaint stems from family court proceedings involving the removal by social service providers

of plaintiff s infant daughter from the Washington Hospital Center’s nursery allegedly without

plaintiff s knowledge. See generally Compl. Plaintiff seeks this Court’s assistance, but this Court lacks authority to review the decisions of the local court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. l994), cerl. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995). Because the complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction, it will be dismissed. A separate Order

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

4 k/,A_._... § H(/¢Cjk.`/ 2 United States District Judge DATE: May / \, 2011