The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
DAVID STEVEN BRAUN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 13-0090 (ESH)
)
STATE OF MONTANA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff David Steven Braun, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint against the State
of Montana, Verizon Wireless, Google, Inc., JP Morgan, Facebook, Rotary International, and
Gallatin County. (Compl. at 1, Jan. 17, 2013). Although mindful that complaints filed by pro se
litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d
1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008), it is clear that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s claims.
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).
A district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte prior to service on the defendants, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), when it is evident that the court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction. See Evans v. Suter, No. 09-5242, 2010 WL 1632902 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2010)
(citing Hurt v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir., No. 07-5019, 2008 WL 441786 (D.C. Cir.
Jan. 24, 2008); Scholastic Entertainment, Inc. v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., 326 F.3d 982,
985 (9th Cir. 2003); Zernial v. United States, 714 F.2d 431, 433-34 (5th Cir. 1983)).
Such is the case with plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff is a resident of Big Sky, Montana.
His complaint consists of a long list of alleged injuries, ranging from electronic and physical
surveillance, improper use of personal information on-line, credit card fraud, his inability to
carry a concealed weapon, mistreatment by the Montana Medical review board, improper use of
personal information, spreading of inaccurate rumors, denial of access to medical treatment, and
denial of access to law enforcement, but no specific legal claims. (Compl. at 1-5.) Assuming
without deciding that plaintiff has viable legal claims against defendants, the allegations in the
complaint do not present a federal question nor bring this case within the Court's diversity
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this case sua sponte pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order consistent
with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately.
/s/
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
DATE: January 25, 2013
2