Employee 1 v. University Legal services/disability Rights Dc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EMPLOYEE #1,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 24-cv-00630 (DLF)
UNIVERSITY LEGAL
SERVICES/DISABILITY RIGHTS DC,
Defendant.
ORDER
Employee 1, proceeding pro se and pseudonymously, filed his complaint in this action
against University Legal Services on March 5, 2024. In the complaint, he alleged counts of
defamation, conspiracy to defame, negligent infliction of distress, and invasion of privacy. Compl.
at 11, Dkt. 1. Prior to filing the complaint in this case, on January 12, 2024, Employee 1 filed an
amended complaint against University Legal Services in a preexisting lawsuit, also alleging
defamation and conspiracy to defame based on the same set of underlying facts. See Second
Amended Complaint at 63, No. 23-cv-2553, Dkt 37. On June 24, 2024, University Legal Services
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in this case under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Motion to Dismiss at 1, No. 24-cv-630, Dkt. 10. Alternatively, University Legal
Services argued this case should be dismissed as duplicative of Employee 1’s previous action. Id.
On September 29, 2024, this Court dismissed with prejudice Employee 1’s claims against
University Legal Services in the original litigation, see Order, No. 23-cv-2553, Dkt. 55, for failure
to state a claim. Before the Court is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 10 in this subsequent
case. The Court will dismiss Employee 1’s complaint in this case as well.
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and it is “presumed that a cause
lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
377 (1994). Employee 1’s complaint alleges to two bases for jurisdiction. First, he alleges this
Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Compl. at 11, No. 24-cv-630.
Federal question jurisdiction arises when civil actions raise claims “arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But defamation, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and invasion of privacy claims are all state law claims. Cf. Bennett v. Google,
LLC, 882 F.3d 1163, 1164 (D.C. Cir 2018); Hudes v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 806 F. Supp. 2d 180, 191
(D.D.C. 2011). His complaint therefore does not raise a federal question.
Second, Employee 1 claims this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1357. That
section allows jurisdiction in cases “commenced by any person to recover damages for any injury
to his person or property on account of any act done by him, under any Act of Congress, for the
protection or collection of any of the revenues, or to enforce the right of citizens of the United
States to vote in any State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1357. But Employee does not allege that University
Legal Services injured him while attempting to collect taxes or protect voting rights. Thus, he
cannot avail himself of that provision. See Aloupis v. United States, 149 F. App’x 889, 891 (11th
Cir. 2005).
Employee 1 resists this conclusion by raising three new jurisdictional arguments in his
motion to dismiss briefing. Opp’n, at 8, 16, No. 24-630, Dkt. 17. He claims that jurisdiction exists
under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651–678, and that University Legal Service’s actions violated his constitutional
rights to “liberty, life and property.” Opp’n at 7, No. 24-630, Dkt. 17. But Employee 1 failed to
offer these bases in his complaint. A plaintiff cannot cure defects in his complaint by raising new
2
claims in his opposition briefing. Budik v. Ashley, 36 F. Supp. 3d 132, 144 (D.D.C. 2014). Thus,
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt 10, dismisses
the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and directs the Clerk of Court to close the
case.
The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff’s address of record.
________________________
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH
October 2, 2024 United States District Judge
3