Sitzmann v. Abbenante

District of Columbia

Sitzmann v. Abbenante

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided March 29, 2012·No. Civil Action No. 2012-0488·Published

Opinion

FILED

MAR 2 9 2012 CC|erk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy ourts for the District of columbia GREGORY JOEL SITZMANN, ) Plaintiff, g v_ § Civil Action No. THOMAS ABBENANTE, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se "Complaint for Malpractice" against the attorney appointed to represent him in a criminal matter now pending in this Court. Compl. 11 l; see United States v. Sitzmarzn, No. O8-cr-0242 (PLF) (D.D.C. filed Aug. 7, 2008). The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.

F ederal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens of different States. See 28 U.S.C. § l332(a). This complaint sets forth a negligence claim, and does not establish federal question jurisdiction Both parties are located in the District of Columbia. Notwithstanding the plaintiff s demand for damages of $100,000, see

Compl. at 4 (page number designated by the Court), diversity of citizenship is not present.

United States District judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED

MAR 2 9 2012 CC|erk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy ourts for the District of columbia GREGORY JOEL SITZMANN, ) Plaintiff, g v_ § Civil Action No. THOMAS ABBENANTE, § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se "Complaint for Malpractice" against the attorney appointed to represent him in a criminal matter now pending in this Court. Compl. 11 l; see United States v. Sitzmarzn, No. O8-cr-0242 (PLF) (D.D.C. filed Aug. 7, 2008). The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.

F ederal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens of different States. See 28 U.S.C. § l332(a). This complaint sets forth a negligence claim, and does not establish federal question jurisdiction Both parties are located in the District of Columbia. Notwithstanding the plaintiff s demand for damages of $100,000, see

Compl. at 4 (page number designated by the Court), diversity of citizenship is not present.

United States District judge

Sitzmann v. Abbenante, (D.D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Sitzmann v. Abbenante (Sitzmann v. Abbenante) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related