Rushing v. McDonald's

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 24, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-0229
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAUN RUSHING, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-00229 (UNA) ) ) MCDONALD’S et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, filed pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint,

ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will

grant the 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. 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 in order 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).

To that end, “the citizenship of every party to the action must be distinctly alleged and cannot be

1 established presumptively or by mere inference.” Meng v. Schwartz, 305 F. Supp. 2d 49, 55

(D.D.C. 2004).

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 resident of Washington, D.C., has sued a McDonald’s restaurant in Washington,

D.C., and a supervisory employee for $1 billion and $100 million, respectively. In the single-page

complaint, Plaintiff seems to allege that the supervisor refused to fulfill his order for a small coffee

with “5 sugars” and “3 creamers” in the manner he requested. Plaintiff concludes that he has been

shown “disrespect” and “discrimination,” but he has not alleged the basis of discrimination. The

allegations, such as they are, do not present a federal question, and Plaintiff has not invoked, much

less established, diversity jurisdiction. Consequently, this action will be dismissed by separate

order.

_________/s/____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS Date: February 24, 2023 United States District Judge