Opinion
Civil Action 22-3527 (UNA)
12-05-2022
JOAN MALONE, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMY BERMAN JACKSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and for the following reasons, will dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
It appears that plaintiff intends to challenge a final order of the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) regarding a decision made by the District's Department of Human Services about benefits plaintiff had been receiving through the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. See Compl., ECF No. 1-1 at 1; see id., ECF No. 1-1 at 17-18. The appeal of an OAH decision is not properly before this Court. Rather, “[j]udicial review of all orders of the Office [of Administrative Hearings] in contested cases shall be in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in accordance with the procedures and rules of that court.” D.C. Code § 2-1831.16(e); see id. § 2-1831.16(c) (“[A]ny person suffering a legal wrong or adversely affected or aggrieved by any order of the Office in any adjudicated case may obtain judicial review of that order.”); see also Brooks v. District of Columbia, 375 F.Supp.3d 41, 49 (D.D.C. 2019) (noting that D.C. Code § 2-1813.03 “enumerates the types of cases over which the OAH has jurisdiction, including cases arising under the jurisdiction of the Department of Human Services, D.C. Code § 1831.03(a)(2)”), aff'd sub nom. Patten v. District of Columbia, 9 F.4th 921 (D.C. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 1129 (2022).
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). This plaintiff has not done so and, therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order is issued separately.