Montes, Jr. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    Francisco Montes, Jr., )
    Plaintiff, §
    v. § Civil Action No. 19-285 (UNA)
    Washington Metropolitan Area §
    Transit Authority, )
    Defendant. §
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed
    informal pauperis (IFP). The Court Will grant the IFP 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,()00. “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.” Bush v. Butler, 
    521 F. Supp. 2d 63
    , 71 (D.D.C. 2007)
    (citing Owen Equip. & Erectz'on Co. v. Kroger, 
    437 U.S. 365
    , 373-74 (1978)). 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. l2(h)(3).
    Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, has sued the Washington Metropolitan Area
    Transit Authority (“WMATA”) for negligence stemming from a traffic accident in the District’s
    northwest quadrant. WMATA “was created by an interstate compact entered into by the District
    of Columbia and the states of Maryland and Virginia.” Watters v. WMA TA, 
    295 F.3d 36
    , 39
    (D.C. Cir. 2002). As “an instrumentality of those states,” WMATA, like the states themselves, is
    not subject to diversity jurisdiction Machie v. Chandonnet, 
    140 F. Supp. 3d 4
    , 9 (D.D.C. 2015)
    (citations omitted). Therefore, this case Will be dismissed A separate order accompanies this
    Memorandum Opinion.
    United States District Judge
    Date: February ll ,2019
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2019-0285

Judges: Judge Trevor N. McFadden

Filed Date: 2/20/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/21/2019