U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

B RUD ROSSMANN , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No.: 1:20- cv -01117- UNA

v. ) ) TERRENCE AUSTIN , et al., ) ) Defendant s. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T his matter is before the c ourt on plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) . The c ourt 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 t he

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)). 6 /1 /2020Pl aintiff 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 sta tes 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

warran t , failing “to meet [their] professional obligations.” He seeks equitable relief and monetary damages. As pled, plaintiff fails to articulate adequately the dep rivation of a protected right. “ Events may not have unfolded as Plaintiff wished, but his dissatis faction . . . [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 j urisdiction of federal courts.” Johnson v. Robinson , 576 F.3d 522, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing

Bilal v. Ka plan , 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam) ). Consequently, there is also no basis to support federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the c ourt will dismiss the complaint without prejudice . An order consistent with

this memorandum o pinion is issued separately. = __________/s/_____________ Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge DATE: June 1, 2020