Spencer v. Self Storage Plus

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 20, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-2387
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PRINCESS MARIA SPENCER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02387 (UNA) ) ) SELF STORAGE PLUS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and an

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The Court grants plaintiff’s

IFP application and, for the reasons discussed below, dismisses this matter for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring a court to dismiss an action “at any

time” it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

Plaintiff, who resides in the District of Columbia, sued a Self Storage Plus, also located in

the District, as well as the FBI and Homeland Security. See Compl. at 1–4. She alleges that, in

June 2024, she rented a locker from Self Storge Plus which was subsequently broken into by an

individual who is not named to this lawsuit. See id. at 4. She contends that this individual has

stalked and harassed her for many years. Plaintiff also seems to allege that Safe Storage

improperly charged her for July 2024 and then subsequently denied her access to the locker. As a

result, she alleges that she has lost personal belongings and suffered emotionally, demanding

$50,000 in damages. See id.

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. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 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).

First, Plaintiff has failed to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff neither

invokes any authority that provides a federal cause of action nor can the court independently

discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts in the complaint. See Johnson v.

Robinson, 576 F.3d 522, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[F]ederal court jurisdiction must

affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly.”) (cleaned up).

Second, Plaintiff has failed to establish diversity of citizenship. “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)). Here, all parties are located in the District of Columbia, thus defeating complete

diversity. See id. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks $50,000, falling below the minimum $75,000

threshold. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

For these reasons, the Court dismisses the complaint, and this matter, without prejudice.

An order consistent with this memorandum opinion is issued separately.

Date: November 20, 2024 /s/_________________________ ANA C. REYES United States District Judge