Court Opinion

ID: 9369769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 18:00:58.911472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.999287
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAUN AKINDOALEXANDER RUSHING,                        )
                                                      )
       Plaintiff,                                     )
                                                      )
       v.                                             )    Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00169 (UNA)
                                                      )
HOMELESS SHELTER, et al.,                             )
                                                      )
       Defendants.                                    )

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons explained below, 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 an unnamed homeless shelter near

2nd and E Streets in Northwest Washington, D.C., and 3 unnamed shelter employees, and in doing

so, fails to comply with by D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1). He alleges that several of defendant’s employees

have treated him with disrespect. More specifically, he contends that in January, he went to the

shelter to retrieve some of his belongings but was prohibited from entering the premises. He

demands $145 million in damages.

       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. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts

that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such

facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
       First, plaintiff’s claims fail to raise any federal question. Second, based on the information

provided, plaintiff and defendants are all located in the District of Columbia, so there can be no

diversity jurisdiction. See 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)) (“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.”). Therefore, this court cannot

exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

        For all of these reasons, the complaint, ECF No. 1, and the case, is dismissed without

prejudice. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

       SO ORDERED.

       Date: February 9, 2023                            ___________/s/____________
                                                          RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
                                                          United States District Judge