Opinion
Civil Action 22-2992 (UNA)
10-24-2022
JAVIER MILLIQUIPAY SANTIBANEZ, Plaintiff, v. INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge.
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 lacking).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts 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)). It is a “well-established rule” that in order for an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time the suit is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991). 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).
The instant complaint, only part of which is in English, is brought against the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, an “autonomous organ of the Organization of American States,” https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/. To the extent intelligible, the complaint arises from Defendant's alleged failures in investigating and/or pursuing Plaintiff's claims of “racial persecution and discrimination” by “four branches of [the] government of Chile[.]” Compl. at 2. Plaintiff has not identified, much less established, the basis of federal court jurisdiction. Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.