Favors v. Abbott

Full title: APRIL FAVORS, Plaintiff, v. GREG ABBOTT, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, District of Columbia

Date published: May 13, 2022

Civil Action 1:22-cv-00552 (UNA) (D.D.C. May. 13, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 1:22-cv-00552 (UNA)

05-13-2022

APRIL FAVORS, Plaintiff, v. GREG ABBOTT, et al., Defendants.

TREVOR N. MCFADDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court will grant the IFP application and dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” if it determines that the subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

Plaintiff, a resident of Leander, Texas, sues the Governor of Texas and the Texas Department of Public Safety. The complaint is far from a model in clarity. Plaintiff seems to allege that an incident transpired when she was at the Texas Supreme Court in January 2022 to “file paperwork.” She contends that she was harassed by the court clerks and asked to leave the building, which caused her emotional damage. The relief sought is unspecified.

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 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). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

Here, all of the parties are located in Texas and the amount in controversy is unknown, therefore, plaintiff has dually failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, there is no indicia that this matter is connected whatsoever to the District of Columbia. The complaint also fails to raise any federal question. For these reasons, this matter will be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.