Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-02101
10-13-2016
Vanessa Holloway, Plaintiff, v. Professor Daryl Scott et al., Defendants.
(F-Deck)
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 10/21/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil Jury Demand MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the plaintiff's application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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). In addition, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Plaintiff is a resident of New York, New York. She sues a professor at Howard University in the District of Columbia for $10,000 based on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff also seeks an order to compel the University to award her a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in History, which she allegedly was denied because of the professor's "intentional behavior [that] caused [her] severe mental distress." Compl. at 1.
Plaintiff states that the University "violated Title IX by denying [her] right to an education," but she has alleged no supporting facts. Therefore, no federal question is presented, and the $10,000 amount in controversy is well below the threshold to establish diversity jurisdiction. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/_________
United States District Judge DATE: October 13, 2016