The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FIL":D
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUG - 5 . !'!~
Clerk, U.S. District Ct bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
)
Shiron Brown, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
) 10 1314
Jeffrey Smith, )
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint 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 at least
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).
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues a District of Columbia resident for
allegedly breaking into her mailbox and stealing her checks, one of which was an "$80,000 tax
check." Compi. at 1. Plaintiff also accuses defendant of committing other criminal acts -- some
brutal, others simply incredulous -- against her and other individuals. She seeks an investigation
and the return of the stolen checks. The complaint does not present a federal question, nor does
it provide a basis for diversity jurisdiction because both parties reside in the District and, thus,
are not of diverse citizenship. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
Date: Hlf ,2010
United States District Jude
2