Richardson v. Holmes

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 6, 2009
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2009-2090
• Status: Published

Opinion

FltED NOV - 6 t009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District and FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy Courts

Angelo Richardson, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 09 2090 Eleanor Holmes, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed

in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction.

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). Failure to

plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues Eleanor Holmes of the District of

Columbia "[t]o have congress legal right to expunge Court case .... " The one-page complaint

neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the

parties are not of diverse citizenship and no amount in controversy is pleaded. Accordingly, the

complaint will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

(?~ ~-.....-c.- Date: October;2, b, 2009 United States District Judge

)~\