United States District Court, District of Columbia
September 19, 2014
James Daniel Johnson, Plaintiff,
Chris Rollins, Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the plaintiffs 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 is a District of Columbia resident suing an individual identified as working in the District. See Compl. Caption. Plaintiff states that he is suing defendant for "fraudulent inducement, stealing my intellectual thoughts, and [for] mental anguish and emotional distress[.]" Compl. at 2. Plaintiff seeks $100, 000 in monetary damages. The complaint does not present a federal question, and the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction because both parties are located in the District of Columbia. Hence, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.