The opinion
§*‘»"“;§§..ED
}U:`Ȏ 'Z 9 2912
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~Cie.~;<_` L;_;, \r;,;,i,,ur & Bm,(r,,ptcy
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA L\J¢.rft';» fm the Usstrict of C<)hzmbia
DONALD L. COBB, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1
) _
VINCENT C. GRAY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the plaintiff s application to proceed
informal pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint
will be dismissed.
Plaintiff brings this action against the current and two former Mayors of the District of
Columbia, current and former members of the Council of the District of Columbia, various
District of Columbia govemment employees, and members of the District of Columbia Board of
Professional Engineers, among other defendants, alleging irregularities in the administration of
the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination on April ll, 2008. See Compl. at 2-3,
26-36.
F ederal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 133 l. Plaintiff purports to bring this action
under 15 U.S.C. § 45 et seq.. see Compl. at l, and thus asserts that his "claim involves a federal
question," z`d. at 12. The federal statute on which his claim relies, however, confers no private
right of action on an individual. See Halloway v. Bristol-Myers Corp., 485 F. 2d 986, 1002
(D.C. Cir. 1973); Karpojj’v. Holladay Corp., 377 A.Zd 52, 53-54 (D.C. 1977). Accordingly, the
\\§
complaint and this action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.l An Order
accompanies this l\/Iemorandum Opinion.
//F/'
/ _/ w // //'//,, l / ,/",./'/r/
DATE; ,'}A/, z ,,j // ~,~///"~/'“ ’; ‘” §
" j / United States District Judge
l ln addition, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens ofdifferent states. See 28 U.S.C. § l332(a). Plaintiff may intend
to rely on diversity jurisdiction to bring claims against the State of California and employees of its Department of
Transportation. See Compl. at 5-l l, l5, 53-59. Although there appears to be diversity of citizenship between
plaintiff and the California defendants, this complaint does not demand damages in any amount_ such that diversity
jurisdiction is not shown.