Rossmann v. Austin ( 2020 )

FILED
6/1/2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Court for the District of Columbia
BRUD ROSSMANN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-01117-UNA
v. )
)
TERRENCE AUSTIN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court will grant plaintiff’s IFP application and dismiss
the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the Public Defender Service for the
District of Columbia and two District of Columbia public defenders. He also sues three John Does.
As a preliminary matter, the Local Rules of this court state that a plaintiff “filing 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).
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. “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. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)).
Plaintiff has failed to invoke diversity jurisdiction and attempts to state a federal question.
However, he merely broadly alleges that he has suffered equal protection and due process rights
violations pursuant to 42 USC §1983. He states that, in spring 2018, defendants represented him
in a criminal action arising out of a purported false arrest warrant. He also alleges that, despite his
requests, defendants have refused to provide him with the number associated with the arrest
warrant, failing “to meet [their] professional obligations.” He seeks equitable relief and monetary
damages.
As pled, plaintiff fails to articulate adequately the deprivation of a protected right. “Events
may not have unfolded as Plaintiff wished, but his dissatisfaction . . . [does] not form a basis for a
due process violation.” Melton v. District of Columbia, 85 F. Supp. 3d 183, 193 (D.D.C. 2015).
Plaintiff also fails to allege a viable equal protection claim. Plaintiff does not identify “the ‘rights’
of which he was deprived or the other individual or individuals to whom these rights were afforded.
Nor does Plaintiff allege how [] other individuals were similarly situated, as he must in order to
state a viable equal protection claim.” Id. “[F]ederal court jurisdiction must affirmatively appear
clearly and distinctly. The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the
jurisdiction of federal courts.” Johnson v. Robinson, 576 F.3d 522, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing
Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam)). Consequently, there is also no basis
to support federal question jurisdiction.
Therefore, the court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An order consistent with
this memorandum opinion is issued separately.=
__________/s/_____________
Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
DATE: June 1, 2020