Opinion
Civil Action No. 17-1184 (UNA)
07-19-2017
Ricky Hugee, Plaintiff, v. Perry Hugee et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
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. "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).
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, has sued two Maryland residents bearing the same surname as plaintiff. The complaint is not a model of clarity, but plaintiff alleges that one of the defendants is operating a business out of his home in Maryland that has a name substantially similar to plaintiff's business. No amount in controversy has been pled; therefore, the court lacks diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, the complaint does not present a federal question. Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: July 19, 2017
/s/_________
United States District Judge