Muhammad v. United States of America ( 2011 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEP 15 2011
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Esa Muhammad a.k.a. Bandele Hinton, ) Courts for the District of Columbia
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. i j 1b 7j
)
United States of America et aI., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed
injormapauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an
action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
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).
Plaintiff, who lists his address as a Post Office Box in the District of Columbia, alleges
that on July 25,2011, he was assaulted by a special police officer "working for McDonald's at
Gallery Place ... " located in the District. CompI. at 1. Plaintiff further alleges that he was
arrested and charged with multiple violations. Id. at 2. In addition to naming the officer and the
McDonald's franchise as defendants, plaintiff names the McDonald's Corporation in Oak Brook,
Illinois, and, inexplicably, the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Metropolitan
Police Department. CompI. Caption. He seeks $26 million in damages. Id. at 2. Plaintiff
indicates that he is proceeding under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., but he has stated no facts to support such a claim.
See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 555 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (a plaintiff's "[f]actual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .... ") (citations omitted).
The complaint contains no facts to bring it within the Court's federal question jurisdiction. In
addition, the complaint provides no basis for diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff and most of
the defendants are located in the District. See Morton v. Claytor, 946 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir.
1991 ) (Table) ("Complete diversity of citizenship is required in order for jurisdiction to lie under
28 U.S.C. § 1332."); Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) ("For jurisdiction to
exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity between the parties, which is to
say that the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.") (citations omitted).
A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
D~ DistrictJiLKiL
United States
5 Judge
DATE: September l' ,2011
2