Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-00189
02-03-2016
Robert G. Modrall, Plaintiff, v. Office of the U.S. Attorney District of Columbia, Defendant.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 2/4/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck) 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 may be so "patently insubstantial" as to deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) ("A district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint 'is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.' ") (quoting Tooley, 586 F.3d at 1009).
Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident. He accuses the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia of "gross negligence and criminal misconduct." Plaintiff claims that the office is, among other things, "a monumental failure and a global embarrassment." Plaintiff vents his disapproval of the office. He does not claim to have suffered an injury, and he demands no relief. Hence, this case will be dismissed.
/s/_________
United States District Judge DATE: February 3, 2016