Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. District of Columbia

United States District Court, District of Columbia

December 12, 2014

Deon Thomas, Plaintiff,
v.
District of Columbia, Defendant

DEON A. THOMAS, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs 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 is a District of Columbia resident suing the District of Columbia. In the one-page complaint, plaintiff alleges that in December 2013, an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department assaulted, arrested, and falsely charged him with a murder that he did not commit. Plaintiff was detained at the D.C. Detention Center for more than three months on the " bogus charge." He seeks loss wages and damages for " stress[, ] humuleation [sic] and suffering." Compl.

The complaint does not present a federal question, and " the District is not subject to the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts." Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409, 414, 261 U.S.App.D.C. 1 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see Yancey v. District of Columbia, 991 F.Supp.2d 171, 180 (D.D.C. 2013) (" [Diversity [jurisdiction] cannot be established between a private party and the District of Columbia") (citations omitted). Plaintiffs recourse lies, if at all, in the District of Columbia courts. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is this 12th day of December 2014, ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. # 2] is GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. This is a final appealable Order.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.