Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-19-05329/USCOURTS-caDC-19-05329-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-5329 September Term, 2019

1:19-cv-03076-UNA

Filed On: February 28, 2020

Robert W. Johnson,

Appellant

v.

Chittenden County State Attorneys Office, et

al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Srinivasan, Chief Judge, Henderson, Circuit Judge, and 

 Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s November 12, 2019 order,

dismissing appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, be affirmed. The

district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to establish federal diversity

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because appellant and numerous defendants

named in the complaint are residents of the same state. See, e.g., Prakash v.

American University, 727 F.2d 1174, 1178 n.25 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“Federal diversity

jurisdiction is lacking if there are any litigants from the same state on opposing sides.”). 

The district court also correctly held that appellant’s references to “discrimination” and

“violations” did not provide a basis for exercising federal subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (“A pleading that states a

claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for the

court’s jurisdiction . . . .”).

USCA Case #19-5329 Document #1830813 Filed: 02/28/2020 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-5329 September Term, 2019

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #19-5329 Document #1830813 Filed: 02/28/2020 Page 2 of 2