Opinion
Civil Action No. 09 0959.
May 7, 2009
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 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).
Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident-landlord, sues his tenant for alleged fraudulent acts and acts harmful to other tenants. The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Plaintiff invokes provisions of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., but he has not established his standing to sue under the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i) (defining "aggrieved person" as one who "claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice" or "believes" that he will be so injured).
Presumably, plaintiff may seek redress in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.