Taylor v. District of Columbia

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 24, 2015
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2015-0272
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT or COLUMBIA M FEB 2" 2015 0.8. District 8. Bankr tome Mototcomnm Saundra Taylor, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case: 1:15-cv—00272 V, ) Asslgned To : Unassigned ) ASSIgn. pate : 2/24/2015 District of Columbia, ) Descnptlon: Pro se Gen- ClV” (F) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff‘s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the plaintiff’s 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. 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 Fort Washington, Maryland, sues the District of Columbia for negligent spoliation of evidence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She invokes diversity jurisdiction. See Comp]. 1] 3. The District of Columbia “like the fifty states, is not

subject to diversity jurisdiction, Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F. 2d 409, 414 (DC. Cir.

1987), and plaintiff neither invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction nor alleges facts

presenting a federal question. Hence, this case will be dismissed.

United S tes District Judge

DATE: Februaryh , 2015