Court Opinion

ID: 9892212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 23:01:10.440664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:19:58.297682
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TYESHA N. ISOM,                                        )
                                                       )
                       Plaintiff,                      )
                                                       )
       v.                                              )       Civil Action No. 23-2853 (UNA)
                                                       )
TEXAS STATE, et al.,                                   )
                                                       )
                       Defendants.                     )

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court GRANTS the

application and, for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action

without prejudice.

       Plaintiff, a Texas resident, finds fault with State government agencies and employees

charged with the care of her minor child. Suffice it to say plaintiff disapproves of the quality of

services provided, flatly dislikes the worker assigned to the case, and disagrees with the worker’s

position that the child not be placed with plaintiff. See Compl. at 4-7 (page numbers designated

by CM/ECF). Plaintiff demands that this worker be removed from the case and that her

supervisor “seek mental health support” for allowing the worker “to still work when using foul

language and feeling endangered.” Id. at 7.

       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 these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available

when a “federal question” is presented or when 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

                                                  1
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)). 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).

        Notwithstanding plaintiff’s bald assertion that her “civil rights [were] violated,” Compl.

at 7, the complaint alleges no facts establishing federal question jurisdiction. There are no facts

establishing diversity jurisdiction either. All the parties appear to reside or conduct business in

Texas, and plaintiff does not indicate an amount in controversy. And to the extent plaintiff

demands an award of custody of her child, federal district courts lack jurisdiction to grant such

relief. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (concluding “that the domestic

relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child

custody decrees”); Bennett v. Bennett, 682 F.2d 1039, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (explaining that

domestic relationship exception divests federal court of jurisdiction over “grant[ing] a divorce,

determin[ing] alimony or support obligations, or resolv[ing] parental conflicts over the custody

of their children”).

        Because subject matter jurisdiction is wanting, the Court must dismiss this case. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). An Order is issued separately.

DATE: October 19, 2023                                  JIA M. COBB
                                                        United States District Judge

                                                   2