Court Opinion

ID: 9391133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-30 22:00:39.527902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.636680
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 IRA R. BANKS, et al.,

                 Plaintiffs,

                                                               Civil Action No. 23-767 (RDM)
         v.

 US BANK TRUST ASSOCIATION, et al.,

                 Defendants.

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

       For the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, Dkt. 1,

without prejudice for failure to allege facts sufficient to sustain subject-matter jurisdiction in this

Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1).

       Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege the basis for federal jurisdiction, nor does it allege

facts sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction or federal-question jurisdiction. Dkt. 1 at 6

(Compl.). As for diversity citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides that “[t]he district courts shall

have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or

value of $75,000, . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States.” Id. § 1332(a). But

Plaintiffs allege that they are both residents of the State of Wisconsin and that thirteen of the

nineteen defendants are also Wisconsin residents. Dkt. 1 at 1–3 (Compl.). Because § 1332

requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants, see Lincoln Prop. Co. v.

Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005), Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to conclude

that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action.
       Although the complaint mentions various federal statutes and constitutional provisions,

including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,

“General Commercial Law,” the “Anti-Racketeering Act,” and “Federal act[s] prohibiting

robbery, extortion,” Dkt. 1 at 6 (Compl.), it does not allege facts sufficient to support federal

question jurisdiction. The Court would, of course, have federal question jurisdiction over a

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act

(“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964. But Plaintiffs’ passing references to these statutes are insufficient

to invoke this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction. Although difficult to follow, the complaint

seems to focus on a different case, which was apparently “filed in [t]he United States District

Court for [t]he District of Wisconsin,” Dkt. 1 at 4; Plaintiffs state that they were “den[i]ed their

day in court” in that case and are “now asking this court to enforce judgment in this case,” id. at

5. But the complaint nowhere states how the various Defendants in this case allegedly violated

the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments, nor does allege anything even resembling a § 1983 or

RICO claim, see H.J. Inc. v. N.W. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239 (1989); see also W. Assocs.

Ltd. P’ship v. Mkt. Square Assocs., 235 F.3d 629, 633 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Instead, these

constitutional provisions and statutes are merely listed or mentioned in an incoherent manner.

And to the extent that Plaintiffs’ complaint cites to federal criminal laws “prohibiting robbery[]

[and] extortion,” Dkt. 1 at 6 (Compl.), the Court notes that “[a]s a general rule, criminal statutes

do not create a private right of action” and thus cannot be relied upon to establish federal subject-

matter jurisdiction. Saunders v. Davis, No. 15-cv-2026, 2016 WL 4921418, at *13 (D.D.C. Sept.

15, 2016).

       In light of these difficulties and the Court’s inability to discern a basis for exercising

federal jurisdiction over what seems to be a challenge to (or about) a foreclosure action

                                                  2
previously brought in a Wisconsin state court—asserting that elder abuse and perjury occurred in

that action—the Court issued an order directing that plaintiff show cause on or before April 14,

2023 why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Min. Order. (Mar. 27, 2023).

Plaintiff failed to respond to this order, and the Court now concludes that it lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction over this matter. The Court will, accordingly, dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without

prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Dkt. 1.

       A separate order will issue.

                                                      /s/ Randolph D. Moss
                                                      RANDOLPH D. MOSS
                                                      United States District Judge

Date: April 30, 2023

                                                  3