Julius v. Novor

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 11, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-0948
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED JUN 1 1 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _Gittrk, U.S. Distnct & Bankruptcy t'il\lrts lor the District of Columbia FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Tyrone Julius, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) Novor et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs three pro se complaints consolidated into

this one civil action and his application to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 The Court will grant

plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(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, a District of Columbia resident, sues defendants located in the District of

Columbia for $999 million in damages. The complaints, lacking any cogent facts, neither present

1 The consolidated complaints are Julius v. Navar, Julius v. Garry Steel P. C, and Julius v. Capital One Bank, all of which were presented to the Clerk's Office on April 3, 2012.

/ y\ / a federal question nor provide a basis for diversity jurisdiction. Even if a basis for federal court

jurisdiction existed, the complaints' allegations "constitute the sort of patently insubstantial

claims" that would deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586

F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

DATE: June ,- b ,2012 v~J- s~ United States District Judge