Bell-Boston v. Nixon ( 2012 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NOV 1 6 2012
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Coul18 for the District of Columbia
Kareemah Bell-Boston, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12 1858
)
Marshall Heights Workforce Community )
Development Organization, )
)
Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the plain,tiff s pro se complaint and application to
proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the 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).
The plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing an organization based in the
District. The plaintiff alleges that when she attended "an orientation" provided by the defendant
in September 2012, the defendant's "representative ... refused to make a copy of my application
for employment referral [and] refused to g[i]ve me the fax number so I could fax my application
3
for employment." Statement ofthe Case at 1-2. The plaintiff states that she "[w]rote to the
United States of America Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . . . concerning
employment discrimination," id. at 2, but she has alleged no facts in the complaint to support a
federal claim of employment discrimination. Since the complaint neither presents a federal
question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction, it will be dismissed. 1
~&/ta-
Um States D1stnct Judge
DATE: October ?-f ,2012
1
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
2