Sitzmann v. Abbenante

District of Columbia

Sitzmann v. Abbenante

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMarch 29, 2012

DocketCivil Action No. 2012-0488

StatusPublished

This text of Sitzmann v. Abbenante (Sitzmann v. Abbenante) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sitzmann v. Abbenante, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sitzmann-v-abbenante-dcd-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack