filed in response to the motions to dismiss, the plaintiff
mentions the term "race issues." (Pl.'s Second Resp. to Phoenix's
Mot. to Dismiss.) Specifically, the plaintiff states, "federal
jurisdiction in this action is Civil Right an Fraud the Complaint
have Race Issues that Plaintiff did not use [sic]." (Id.) He
states no specific law on which he bases this claim other than
civil rights violations based on Rule 440. The court was unable
to find such a rule relating to civil rights. A conclusory
statement without any facts alleged to support it is simply
insufficient. See Wilson, 839 F.2d at 379. The court concludes
that the plaintiff's civil rights claims are conclusory, and the
plaintiff does not state a claim upon which relief can be
Accordingly, the court grants the defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. The Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint
Under certain circumstances, a plaintiff may rescue an
otherwise deficient complaint by amending it. Once a responsive
pleading is served, a party may amend the party's pleading by
leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party,
and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). If the underlying facts or circumstances
relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, the
plaintiff ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim
on the merits. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct.
227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). However, when the plaintiff attempts
to add a futile amendment to the complaint, the court does not
abuse its discretion when it denies leave to amend the complaint.
See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir. 1996);
Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227. An amendment is futile if
the complaint as amended would not survive a motion to dismiss.
See Monroe v. Williams, 705 F. Supp. 621, 623 (D.D.C. 1988);
James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1099 (D.C.Cir.
In the present case, the plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint asserts a claim of negligence for each defendant and
increases the counts of fraud to fifteen for each defendant.
Phoenix opposes this motion by arguing that the plaintiff's
amended complaint fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiff's amendment is futile because the claims
encompassed by it will not cure the deficiencies of the original
complaint, namely lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As
discussed above, subject matter jurisdiction is satisfied if an
issue arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the
United States, or if diversity exists between the parties and the
amount in controversy is satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331;
28 U.S.C. § 1332. In the case at bar, because the plaintiff seeks to
add state law claims of fraud and negligence to the complaint,
the proposed amended complaint would have to cure the diversity
of citizenship deficiency suffered by the original complaint in
order to satisfy the requirements of subject matter jurisdiction.
The complete diversity requirement is still not satisfied because
the proposed amended complaint does not add or delete any parties
named in the original complaint. The plaintiff and the State of
Maryland, a defendant, are both Maryland entities. Accordingly,
amending the complaint would be futile because the plaintiff's
proposed amendments would not correct the deficiency in the
original complaint (lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
Therefore, the court denies the plaintiff's motion to amend the
For the reasons stated above, the court rules that subject
matter jurisdiction does not exist, and the plaintiff failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the
court grants Defendants Phoenix and MetLife's motions to dismiss
the complaint. Further, the court finds
the plaintiff's proposed amended complaint would not cure the
deficiencies of the original complaint. Consequently, the court
denies the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. An
appropriate order directing the parties in a fashion consistent
with this memorandum opinion is separately and contemporaneously
issued this 22 day of March, 1999.