1 UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

) PATRI CI A PATTERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) v. ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 09 -05 16 (P L F) ) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA HOUSI NG ) AUTHO RI TY, ) ) De fe nd ant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON This matter is befor e the Court on def endant’ s motion t o dismiss or, in the

a lte rn a tiv e , f

or summa ry jud g me nt. F or

the re a so ns dis c us se d b e low , th e mot ion to d ism iss wi ll be g ra nte d, and the mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt w ill be de nie d a s mo ot.

I . BA CKGROUND The District of Columbia Housing Authority (“D CHA”), e stablished as an independe nt authority

of the District of Columbia g overnme nt, see D.C. Code § 6-202(a ), owns and oper ates public housing proper ties in the District of Columbia, one of which is Gr eenle af Gar dens in Southwest, Washington, D.C. Seehtt p:/ /w ww .d c ho us ing .o rg(f

oll ow“ Pr op e rt ie s” hy perlink; then follow “G ree nleaf Gar dens” hy

perlink). It appea

rs that plaintiff has be en a tenant at Gr eenle af G arde ns since Nove mber 1998. SeeCom pl. , A tta c h. (D we lli ngL e a se Ag ree ment, L ease No. 021-0307) a t 1. I n it s e nti re ty , p la int if

f’ s Co mpl a int

re a ds a s f

oll ow s:2 IPatricia Patterson ha s [s ic] been har ass [sic] , reta liated, intimidated, and c oe rc ion [sic ] by Di str ict of

Col umb ia

Ho us ingAutho ri ty Ad min istrator. I have f

ile [sic ] num e ro us c omp la int wi th t he F a ir Ho us ing Gr ie va

nc e Pr oc e dure and the re ta liatio n sti ll oc c ur the l a st date of reta l i at ion 3/9/09[ .] I place [si c] the lease a g ree ment in the Fa ir Hea ring 2/15/08[ ;] DCHA has not re sponded bac k. Ifile [sic] ano th er c omp la int

be c a us e my re nt i nc re a se to $ 20 3. 00 and my income I turn in was $728.00 and the letter stat ed t h at there was no chang e in child support[.] Ig ave the m a lett er s t at ed the last repor t was in 8/ 1/08 for the amount of $33.17. Ifile [sic] a complaint about my rent a nd Irec eived a

notice on 3/9/09 to vacate or c ure if I don’t sign the new lease which I produce evidenc e that ACLU has wr itten stated that it violated civil ri gh t law and ba sic rig ht. Ihave be en ha ra ss [s ic ] sin c e 2/0 6[.] Ms. De bo ra h To dd ha s e nte r [s ic ] my

un it illega lly numerous of time a

nd Housing was a

war e. I am re questing $5 0, 00 0 f or a ll the ha ra ss [s ic ] the e xtor

tio n o f my

re nt. Compl. at 1.

I I . DI SCUS SI ON

Fe dera l district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and “possess only that power confe rre d by

Constit ution and statute.” Kokkone n v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. , 5 11 U. S. 375, 377 (1994). “ As a c ourt of limited jurisdiction, thi s Court is under a c ontinuing oblig ation to examine its jurisdiction any time it appear s to be in question.” Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates , 6 5 8 F. S u

p p . 2 d 1 3 5 , 1 3 7 (D

. D. C

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Nahas , 7 38 F .2 d 4 87 , 4 92 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 4) ); see Arbaugh v . Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 507 (2006) ( “The objection that a f eder al cour

t lacks subject- matter jurisdiction . . . may be ra ised by a par ty , or by a cour t on its own ini tiative, at any stag e in the litigation, even af ter trial a nd the entry of judg ment.”). The Court neither may “over look a potential def ect in its jurisdiction simply beca use the pa rties fa il to call it to t he Court’s attention[,] ” nor ma y “pre sume the exis tence of jurisdiction in order to dispose of a case on any

other g rounds.” Nik

bik v . I sla mi c Republic of Iran , 471 F. Supp. 2d 53, 58 (D.D .C. 2007) (citation omitted). “I f the c ourt3

deter mines at any

time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the c ourt must dism iss the action.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

“The basic statutory

g rants of f

eder al-c ourt subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. at 513. Fe dera l district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising unde r the Constituti on, laws or tre aties of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and may have jur isdiction over state c ommon law disputes that arise be tween c itiz ens of diff ere nt states wher e the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Ke epingin mind that a pleadingfiled by a pr o s e pla int if

f i s held to a less string ent standar d than that applied to a ple adingprepa red by a lawyer, see H

aines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court identifies no ba sis for its jurisdiction.

The c omplaint does not establish that plaintiff’s ca use of a ction arises unde r the United States Constit ution, feder al law, or treaty . Nor doe s the pleadingestablish jurisdiction based on dive rsity

of citizenship because both parties either reside or conduct business in the District of Columbia and the amount in controve rsy falls below the $75,000 thr eshold. Absent these c ritical ele ments, the complaint is subject to dismis sal for la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction. See, e .g., Johnson v. Robinson , 5 76 F .3 d 5 22 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 9) (p e r c ur iam) (af firming dismiss al of c omplaint for lack of subject matter jur isdiction because it “is an

ou tg ro wth o f a

D. C. l and lor d- te na

nt d isp ute be tw e e n r e sid e nts of the Di str ic t” and

be c a us e “ it established neither

fede ral que stion nor diversity of citizenship jurisdiction”). Rather, it appe ars that plaintiff’s cla ims of hara ssment, retaliation, intimidation, coercion, a nd other torts ar e loca l law matter s over whic h this Court has no independent jurisdiction.4 I I I . CONCL USI ON For the re asons stated a

bove, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order

acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/ s / PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge DATE: Mar ch 8, 2010