# Royster v. Board of Professional Responsibility

> District Court, District of Columbia · November 2, 2010

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2665069

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** November 2, 2010
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2665069

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
GAIL ROYSTER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 10-395 (EGS)
v. )
)
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL )
RESPONSIBILITY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court are the motions to dismiss of

defendants Board on Professional Responsibility, Elizabeth A.

Herman, Elizabeth J. Branda, Charles J. Willoughby, the District

of Columbia Court of Appeals, Garland Pinkston, Jr., and Ernest

W. Brooks (collectively, “defendants”). Upon consideration of

the motions, the responses and replies thereto, the applicable

law, and for the following reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS

defendants’ motions to dismiss 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 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 this case, plaintiff, a Maryland resident, filed a

complaint that consists solely of the following statements:

I am charging Elizabeth A. Herman with falsely
submitting my case without consent [sic] to the
Petition of Negotiated Discipline hearing committee
#4 on March 17th, 2009 with false information and
continuing to carry it wrong [sic] thereafter to
the court of appeals.
• Falsifying legal documents, tampering,
misrepresentation, negligence.
• I would like justice and compensation for
damages.
• I request a jury trial.
• Money is negotiable.

Compl. at 2. The Court finds that this complaint neither

presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity

jurisdiction as plaintiff has failed to allege that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action. Because

plaintiff’s recourse lies, if at all, in the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motions to

dismiss. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: EMMET G. SULLIVAN
United States District Judge
November 2, 2010

2
Notice to:
GAIL ROYSTER
26 Nancy Court
Baltimore, MD 21237

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2665069. Public record. Not legal advice.