Ramrattan v. Chapin

Full title: DONNA A. RIDLEY RAMRATTAN, Plaintiff, v. PETER A. CHAPIN, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Jun 25, 2008

Civil Action No. 08 1147 (D.D.C. Jun. 25, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08 1147.

June 25, 2008

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICARDO URBINA, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on consideration of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Unlike state courts of general jurisdiction, federal district courts have limited jurisdiction. A federal district court has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, however, the complaint refers to plaintiff's dissatisfaction with her lawyer in a class action suit, which is not a claim that arises under the Constitution or the laws or treaties of the United States. A federal district court also has jurisdiction over civil actions in matters where the controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. See 28U.S.C. § 1332(a). But here it appears that both parties are citizens of the District of Columbia, and the plaintiff does not identify an amount in controversy, unless it is the $30,000 settlement amount she seeks.

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.