Rushing v. City of Cape Giradeau

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 10, 2021
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2021-2100
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED AUG 10 2021 SHAUN RUSHING, ) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy ) Court for the District of Columbia Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-2100 (UNA) ) ) CITY OF CAPE GIRADEAU, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and his Complaint. The application will be granted, and this

case will be dismissed for want of 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. “For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be

complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the

same state as any defendant.” Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen

Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)). It is a “well-established rule”

that for an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time

the suit is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).

1 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.

Plaintiff is a resident of Grand Rapids, Michigan, who has sued the City of Cape Giradeau

in an unspecified State for “$110 Trillion dollars.” In the one-page pleading, plaintiff alleges that

he was not paid “for performing officers’ duties.” Plaintiff has neither specified the basis of federal

court jurisdiction nor pled sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction. Further, the citizenship of each

party is not “distinctly” alleged, Meng v. Schwartz, 305 F. Supp. 2d 49, 55 (D.D.C. 2004), to

proceed under the diversity statute. Therefore, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. A

separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

_________/s/_______________ EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge Date: August 10, 2021