Opinion
Civil Action 22-1699 (UNA)
06-17-2022
MARTHA ANN CREWS, Plaintiff,[1] v. JOHN PURCELL et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's pro se Complaint, Dkt. 1, and her Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2. The Court will grant the application, and for the reasons discussed below, will dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
Plaintiff alleges that John Purcell, Jr., her grandson to whom she granted permission to renovate her residence at 1739 Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC, “fraudulently manipulated his way into not only ‘managing the aforementioned project,' but also into . . . having his name appear as the owner” of the property. Compl. at 2. She further alleges that Purcell mortgaged the property, “basically, disappeared” with the proceeds, and defaulted on the loan. Id. It appears that the property since has been sold, and plaintiff demands that defendants “either restore ownership of the property . . . to its rightful owner (Martha Ann Crews), adequately compensate her for the value of her home . . . or formulate a plausible plan for her . . . to re-acquire the property.” Id.
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 these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available when a “federal question” is presented or when the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. “For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” Bush v. Butler, 521 F.Supp.2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)). 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), and the Court must dismiss an action if it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
This complaint does not present a federal question, and the case may proceed only if plaintiff establishes diversity jurisdiction. Although defendants Purcell and 1SREO Opportunity 1 appear to reside or conduct business in Virginia and Georgia, respectively, plaintiff and the remaining defendants reside or conduct business in the District of Columbia. In this circumstance, where plaintiff and certain defendants are citizens of the District of Columbia, plaintiff does not demonstrate complete diversity. See Morton v. Claytor, 946 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision) (“Complete diversity of citizenship is required in order for jurisdiction to lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”). “When a Court's subject matter jurisdiction is dependent solely on diversity jurisdiction and the Court finds that complete diversity does not exist, the Court must dismiss the suit.” Bush, 521 F.Supp.2d at 71 (citing Fox v. Bd. of Trustees of the State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir.1994)) (additional citation omitted).
An Order is issued separately.