Norman v. Norman

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 23, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-1519
• Status: Published

Opinion

/n/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA

FILED

) AUG 2 3 2011 cien<, u,s D;S¢,~ Dawn Norman, ) Cou t ` .'°t_& Bankruptc ) r s for the Distnct 01 gojumb; Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action N0. ) Boneca Norman el al., ) ) Defendants. ) ;~ ) 11 1019 MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of 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. S(a).

Plaintiff is a resident of Richmond, Virginia, suing individuals mostly in Virginia. See Compl. Caption. She seeks "[d]amages of zillion plus." Id. The cryptic complaint neither

presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff and

most of the defendants reside in the same state. lt therefore will be dismissed A separate Order

accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United St tes ` rict Judge DATE: August , 2011