Okutuga v. Miller

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: July 9, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-01979
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CAROLINE ABISOLA OKUTUGA, Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No.: SAG-25-1979 ROBERT MILLER, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Self-represented plaintiff Caroline Abisola Okutuga filed the above-captioned Complaint together with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Plaintiff then filed a “supplement” to her Complaint, which this Court will construe as an Amended Complaint, ECF 7. Her Complaint must be dismissed for the reasons stated below, and her motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied as moot. Plaintiff, a Maryland resident, brings this Complaint against Robert Miller, identified as the “CEO of Safeway” who resides in California, ECF 7 at 2, and an “unknown employee/cashier” of a Maryland Safeway store. ECF 7 at 4. Although the complaint is not a model of clarity, it appears to allege that the unknown employee “used a mechanism to remove funds” from Plaintiff’s EBT cash card. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Ordinarily, a plaintiff must establish either diversity jurisdiction or federal jurisdiction to permit this Court to hear the case. Diversity jurisdiction allows federal courts to exercise original jurisdictions, in some circumstances, where the dispute is between “citizens of different States” where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. That does not appear to be the case here because (1) both Plaintiff and the unknown Defendant are likely Maryland residents and (2) Plaintiff has not requested damages in an amount exceeding $75,000. See ECF 7 at 4 (declining to specify an amount in controversy).

Federal question jurisdiction exists where at least one of a plaintiff’s claims is brought pursuant to the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff has only identified 18 U.S.C. §112(d), which is a criminal statute relating to “Protection of foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons.” Plaintiff has not identified any federal constitutional provision or law that would allow her to bring a private civil claim in federal court for the type of theft-related incident she describes. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 instructs district courts that they “shall dismiss [a] case” filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231-33 (5th Cir. 2002) (extending 28 U.S.C. § 1915 screening to non- prisoner pro se litigants). For the reasons above, this court lacks jurisdiction and Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Her federal complaint must be dismissed without prejudice and this case will be closed. A separate Order follows.

__J_u_l_y_ 9_,_ 2__0_2_5____ _____________ / _ s _ / ______________ Date Stephanie A. Gallagher United States District Judge