Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-01995
10-04-2016
George Lee Odemns III, Plaintiff, v. Theodore John Leonsis et al., Defendants.
(F-Deck)
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 10/6/2016
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 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, a District of Columbia resident, purports to sue various defendants in the sports and entertainment industry. His primary target, however, appears to be Ted Leonsis, who owns the Washington Wizards professional basketball team and various other sports and entertainment businesses. The alleged wrongful conduct is wholly unclear. Plaintiff states that he "is the Electronic sole author without exceptions for the said alleged . . . defendants and total assets that all affects interstate and foreign commerce and still continue to do so." Compl. at 6. The statements comprising the prolix complaint continue in this largely incoherent manner. The Court discerns no claim over which it can exercise subject matter jurisdiction. Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/_________
United States District Judge DATE: October 4, 2016