The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
CASSIE GRIFFIN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 10-396 (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 all name
defendants [sic] 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:
CASSIE GRIFFIN
1302 Lakeside Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21218
3