Knight v. Bell

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARVIN KNIGHT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 25-02726 (UNA)

)

)

RAYMOND EMANUEL BELL, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the complaint.

Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., sues an individual alleged to be a D.C. citizen and founder of a trucking company in the District. See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3-4. In the disjointed Complaint, Plaintiff mentions “negligence” and “breach of contract” in regard to an “accident that occurred on” September 29, 2022, where he “was a victim.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges “I did not receive my $450 stipend” and was not allowed “to finish training for certification.” Id. He seeks an unspecified amount of damages for lost wages, pain, suffering, and emotional distress. Id. at 5.

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, id. § 1331, or the parties are “citizens of different States” and the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” id. § 1332(a). A party seeking relief in the district court must plead facts that bring the

2

suit within the court’s jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), or suffer dismissal of the case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

The Complaint does not present a claim arising under “the Constitution [or] laws . . . of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor establish diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN

Date: November 14, 2025 United States District Judge