Opinion
Civil Action 23-01703 (UNA)
07-11-2023
BITAVIA CLEVELAND, Plaintiff, v. SHAWNEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TREVOR N. McFADDEN, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff's pro se Complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is wanting).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts 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).
Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, has sued a county court in Topeka, Kansas. The cryptically worded Complaint, ECF No. 1, neither presents a federal question nor demands any relief. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks review of the referenced “Court Case,” id. at 1, this district court lacks jurisdiction. See Gray v. Poole, 275 F.3d 1113, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents lower federal courts from hearing cases that amount to the functional equivalent of an appeal from a state court.”) (citing Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)); United States v. Choi, 818 F.Supp.2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (district courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.”) (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F.Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986)). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.