Julius v. Ward

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 11, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-0943
• Status: Published

Opinion

FII.FD UN 1 1 012 Clerk, L >. District~ ElankJUptcy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Courts f•' ·the Distric of Co umbia FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Tyrone Julius, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ) Civil Action No. 12 0943 AronS. Ward et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs five prose 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. Ward, Julius v. Dr. Gash, Julius v. Mrs. Taler, Julius v. Dr. Eage, and Julius v. Garry Steel, all of which were presented to the Clerk's Office between April 1 and April 10, 2012.

/ ~'\ I 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.

u~ J ~~~ DATE: June c.r: 2012 United States District Judge