UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BRUD ROSSMANN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-01117-UNA

v. ) 

 ) 

TERRENCE AUSTIN, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The court 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 the 

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)). 

6/1/2020
Plaintiff 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 states 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 

warrant, failing “to meet [their] professional obligations.” He seeks equitable relief and monetary 

damages. 

As pled, plaintiff fails to articulate adequately the deprivation of a protected right. “Events 

may not have unfolded as Plaintiff wished, but his dissatisfaction . . . [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 

jurisdiction of federal courts.” Johnson v. Robinson, 576 F.3d 522, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing 

Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam)). Consequently, there is also no basis 

to support federal question jurisdiction.

Therefore, the court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An order consistent with 

this memorandum opinion is issued separately.=

__________/s/_____________

 Emmet G. Sullivan

 United States District Judge

DATE: June 1, 2020