Opinion
Civil Action 1:23-cv-01701 (UNA)
07-06-2023
BITAVIA CLEVELAND, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BOARD OF MEDICAL SPECIALTIES, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff's pro se Complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the action without prejudice.
Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, has sued the non-profit American Board of Medical Specialties in Chicago, Illinois, alleging that she was mistreated by doctors. The singleparagraph Complaint neither presents a federal question nor alleges the basis for the Court's exercise of diversity jurisdiction, which requires diverse citizenship of the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction” and “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
Rule 8 “ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted” and “assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Spencer v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, No. 23-00322, 2023 WL 2139368, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2023). Because the Complaint fails to provide notice of Plaintiff's claim and the basis for the Court's jurisdiction, the action will be dismissed without prejudice by separate order.