O'Connor v. Some ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Carolyn E. O’Connor, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-480 (UNA)
)
)
S.O.M.E. et. al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the plaintiff’s 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).
Plaintiff resides at a shelter in Washington, D.C. She has sued a non-profit organization
in the District, “complaining of discrimination, personal injury and monetary loss, due primarily
to negligence and intentional acts . . . with regard to Plaintiff’s complaints” about her living
environment. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that as “a Caucasian, aged female,” she is “an extreme
minority” who “is being harassed [and bullied] by the Black-American tenants” and “by
management” in the building where she lives. Id. She raises concerns about, inter alia, sharing
1
“common kitchen and bathroom facilities with HIV+ virus infected persons,” which allegedly “is
estimated’ to be “at least 90% of the tenants[.]” Id. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have ignored
her complaints. She seeks $200 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive
damages. Compl. at 3.
Plaintiff has neither identified the basis of federal jurisdiction nor alleged sufficient facts
to state a federal claim against the private defendants. In addition, the complaint does not allege
any facts about the parties’ citizenship to consider diversity jurisdiction. See Freeport-McMoRan,
Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991) (it is a “well-established rule” that in order for
an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time the suit
is filed”). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. 1 A separate order of dismissal accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
_________s/_____________
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
Date: April 7, 2020 United States District Judge
1
Plaintiff’s recourse may lie, if at all, in the District of Columbia courts under D.C. law.
2