Opinion
Civil Action 24-2917 (UNA)
12-16-2024
DERRICK ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN MASON, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LOREN L. ALIKHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Derrick Allen, appearing pro se, brings this action and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. The court will grant the IFP application and dismiss the complaint.
Mr. Allen, who is unhoused in the District of Columbia, sues Maryland-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”), Freestate Electric, Freestate Supervisor Kathleen Mason, and an individual seemingly connected to the union. See Compl. at 2 (Parties' List). Allegedly, Mr. Allen “received a referral and [was] told to report” to Laurel, Maryland, “for orientation and [a job] assignment.” Id. at 4. He “slept outside Freestate [E]lectric for two nights [without] food.” Id. Mr. Allen “attempted to report to work” but was not “provided any other job assignment” after informing Ms. Mason “of no public transportation.” Id. Mr. Allen “spent $38.96 on a bus ticket.” Id. He seeks compensatory damages “in the amount of $256 Billion.” Id.
Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F.Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). It “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
As the bases for federal court jurisdiction, Mr. Allen cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1332. Compl. at 3. While Mr. Allen purports to raise a federal question, he does not explain how allegedly being denied a job opportunity violates his constitutional rights. And even though he seeks $256 billion in damages, the court may dismiss a complaint due to an inadequate amount in controversy if, “from the face of the pleadings,” it “appear[s] to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the [required] jurisdictional amount.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (conferring original jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs”). Regardless, Mr. Allen fails “to articulate either the required factual or legal bases for [the] requested relief.” Karim-Panahi v. U.S. Cong., Senate & House of Representatives, 105 F. App'x. 270, 274 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.