Wilder v. Seagraves ( 2021 )

FILED
11/22/2021
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Court for the District of Columbia
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
:
BRENDA B. WILDER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil Action No. 21-2961 (UNA)
:
JOSEPH DAVID LAWHORN, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
___________________________________ :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, which the
Court finds deficient. First, the local rules of this Court require that a plaintiff proceeding “pro
se in forma pauperis must provide in the [complaint’s] caption the name and full residence
address or official address of each party.” LCvR 5.1(c)(1). Plaintiff does not provide addresses
for defendants.
Second, the complaint does not meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the
grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader
seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Here, plaintiff alleges in conclusory fashion that defendants raped
her. See Compl. at 4-5 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF). Missing are any factual
allegations indicating when or where the alleged rape occurred, or any other allegations
sufficient to put defendants on notice of the claims against them.
1
Third, the complaint does not establish adequately a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction.
Plaintiff asserts diversity jurisdiction, see Compl. at 3, which requires not only that “the matter in
controversy exceed[] the sum or value of $75,000,” but also that the parties are “citizens of
different States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff meets the first criterion, declaring that the value
of the matter in controversy is $100,000. See Compl. at 3. If, as plaintiff suggests, see id.,defendants are District of Columbia residents, she fails to demonstrate that the parties are
citizens of different states. Absent complete diversity, dismissal of the case is warranted. See
Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (“When a Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction is dependent solely on diversity jurisdiction and the Court finds that complete
diversity does not exist, the Court must dismiss the suit.”) (citations omitted).
Fourth, insofar as plaintiff demands criminal prosecution of defendants, see Compl. at 7-
8, the Court cannot grant such relief. The decision to prosecute an individual, or to decline
prosecution, is left to the Executive Branch of government. See Williams v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 689 F. App’x 645, 646 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of “complaint
on the grounds that: (1) the U.S. Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to
investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution and such decisions are not subject to
judicial review”); see generally Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64-65 (1986) (noting that
private citizens cannot compel enforcement of criminal law).
The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order is issued separately.
DATE: November 22, 2021 /s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
2