Opinion
Civil Action No. 09 1407.
July 24, 2009
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiff, who lists a Washington, D.C. address on the complaint, has filed a complaint against a defendant with a Pennsylvania address. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff's brother stole her identification, including her social security number (which she lists on this and other complaints filed on the same day), and seeks to have "all of the derogatory information removed from my name and social security number under this and any bank." The complaint does not indicate what "derogatory information" exists that the plaintiff wants removed. See Compl. at 1.
Unlike state courts of general jurisdiction, federal district courts have limited jurisdiction. A federal district court has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, however, the facts alleged do not suggest claims that arise under the Constitution or the laws or treaties of the United States. A exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. See 28 C.F.R. § 1332(a). But here, while it appears that the parties have diverse citizenship, the plaintiff does not identify an amount in controversy and the factual allegations do not suggest that the amount is over $75,000. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.