1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

JAMES DANIEL JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civ il Action No. 1 3

- 0 505 (RMC)

)

HOWARD UNIVERSITY et al

. )

)

Defendant s

. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

P laintiff James Daniel Johnson sues Howard University and former employee

Chris Rollins who worked in the University’s printing and graphics department

. Mr. Johnson

alleges that in April 2011 , apparently while incarcerated in a federal prison, he was “fraudulently

induced” to send his poetry books to Howard. 1 Compl. [Dkt. 1] at 1. Allegedly, through

telephone conversations with Mr. Rollins, Mr. Johnson was “told . . . that they would publish

[his] poetry books as a public service for under privilege [sic] writers

, ” but Mr. Rollins “who was

in charge of this publication kept stringing [Mr. Johnson] along and lying to [him] about the

University publishing [his] books.” Id . Mr. Johnson seeks $3 million in damages. Id . at 2.

The University moves to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule s of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt

. 1 2]. Mr.

Johnson has opposed th is motion . Opp’n [Dkt. 15]. Upon consideration of the parties’

submissions, the Court finds that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting and, thus, will grant the

1 Mr. Johnson was released from prison on January 17, 2013 [Dkt. # 4] . H is current address of

record is a transitional rehabilitation program in the District of Columbia.2 University’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). 2

“ Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction

. . . . I t is to be presumed that a

cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon

the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian life Ins. Co. of America , 511 U.S. 375,

377 (1994) (internal citat ions omitted). As applicable here, t his Court has original jurisdiction

over “civil actions arising under the Constitution laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28

U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) , and “civil actions where the matter in controversy exc eeds the

sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between (1) citize ns of different S tates . . . .” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a) (diversity)

.

The instant complaint alleging a common l aw claim of fraud does not come within

this Court’s federal question jurisdicti on, and the diversity statute “ applies only to cases in which

the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant .” Caterpillar

Inc. v. Lewis , 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Because Mr. Johnson states that he has been a resident of

the District of Columbia since 2008 , Opp’ n at 1 ¶ 1, 2 , which , for purposes of diversity, is where

the University and Mr. Rollins reside, the Court will dismiss this case under Rule 12(b)(1) for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separat e Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER

Date: July 26 , 201 3 United States District Judge

2 Mr. Rollins has not been served with process and has not otherwise appeared in th e case.

Although Mr. Johnson now has provided an address in the District of Columbia where service of

process may be attempted, see Mot. for Court to Serve Second Def. [Dkt

. 18], the attempt would

be futile because the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction o ver a defendant whe n it lacks subject

matter jurisdiction over the case

.