UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ ) ANDREW GI L L , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-0735 ( RW R) ) DRUG ENF ORCEMENT AGENCY et al. , ) ) ) Def endants. ) __________________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON In this civil action broug ht pro se , plaintiff sues the United States D rugEnforc ement Ag ency (“D EA”) , the Fe dera l Bure au of I nvestig ation (“F BI ”), a

nd the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Depa rtment (“MPD” ) for

brea ch of c ontrac t. Specifica lly , plaintiff alleg es that: (1) he “ sign[ed]” a c ontrac t with a DEA a g ent “to assist in the appre hension of suspec ts dealingin drug s,” and “ a similar contra ct” with an MPD off icer , (2) he supplied information that resulted in “at least two arr ests,” and ( 3) def endants have not paid him for the inf ormation. Compl. at 2. MP D moves to dismiss the complaint under Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 8 for insufficient plea ding of

a cla im, Rul e 12(b) (1) f

or lac k of subject matter

jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)( 6) for

failure to state a c laim for which r elief c an be grante d, and the DE A and F BI (“the fede ral de fenda

nts”) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)( 6). For the followingrea sons, eac h motion will be grante d. Plaintiff has opposed only MPD’s motion t o dismiss ; theref ore, the fede ral de fenda

nts’ motion advancingvalid arguments for dismissal will be gr anted a s conce ded. SeeFe d. Def s.’ Mem. in Supp. of Motion t o Dismiss [ Doc. No. 20- 1] at 3-8; Order ( Sept. 9, 2011) (advisingplaintiff about the c onsequenc es of not opposingthe fe dera l defe ndants’ motion to dism iss by

October 12, 2011). MPD corre ctly

asser ts that it cannot be sued a s an entity separ ate f

rom the District of Columbi a. See Mem. of P. & A . in Supp. of Def. MPD’s Mot. to Dismiss at 6-7. There fore , the District of Columbia is subst ituted as the prope r non-f eder al def endant, a nd the complaint ag ainst it will be dism issed under Rule 12( b)(1) for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction. I . SUBJECT MATTER J URI SDI CTI ON “On a motion to di smiss for lack of subje ct-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) , the plaintiff bea

rs the burde n of establishingthat the cour t has subject-matter jurisdiction.” Larsen v. U.S. Navy , 486 F. Supp. 2d 11, 18 (D.D .C.2007); see also Mom s Against Mercury v

. FDA , 483 F.3d 824, 828 ( D.C. Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has made no suc h showinghere

. See generally Pl.’s Mot. S howingU.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Does H ave J urisdiction in This C ase Respondingto Defe ndants’ Reque st to Dismi ss Claimi ngL ack of J urisdiction by

the Court and Answe rs Def ense’ s Motion to Dis miss W ith a Question Br oug ht For th Requesting the Def

endant B e Specif

ic [Doc. No. 14]. The fe dera l district courts have or igina l jurisdiction over “a ll civil actions arisingunder the Constitut ion, laws, or tre aties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and “a ll civil actions wher e the matter

in controver sy

exceeds the sum or va lue of $75,000 . . . a nd is betwee n . . . citizens of differ ent States[,] ” § 1332(a )(1) . This action pre dicated on the District’s alleg ed contra ct bre ach doe s not present a fede ral que stion under § 1331, and “ the District, like the fifty states, is not subject to [ the] diversity jurisdiction . . . of the fede ral c ourts” under § 1332. Long v. District of Columbia , 820 F.2d 409, 414 ( D.C. Cir. 1987); accord Pric e v. U nited Med. Ctr. , No. 10-7080, 408 F ed. Appx. 375, 376 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 19, 2010). 2I I . CONCLUSI ON

For the fore g oing r easons, the f eder al def endants’ unoppose d motion to di smiss for failure to state a c laim will be gr anted a s conce ded, and the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction will be gr anted ove r plaintiff’s obje ction. All other pendingmotions wil l be denied a s moot. A sepa rate Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum 1 Opinion.

_________/s/_____________ RI CHARD W. R OB ERTS DATE: De cembe r 13, 2011 United States District J udg e

Given the f

inal dispositi on of this case , no rea son exi sts for addr essingplaintiff’s 1 frivolous motions for “eme rg ency” sanc tions [ Doc. Nos. 13, 18, 21] and MPD’s motion for an order of protec tion from such motions [ Doc. No. 22]. 3