Court Opinion

ID: 9913868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 21:01:42.037622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:00.755671
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LEWIS ROSS BROWN,                               )
                                                )
                Plaintiff,                      )
                                                )
        v.                                      )       Civil Action No. 23-03494 (UNA)
                                                )
                                                )
BRENDA GONZALEZ-HOROWITZ,                       )
                                                )
                Defendant.                      )

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint and an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”). The IFP application is granted and this case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines

that subject-matter jurisdiction is wanting).

        “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power authorized

by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)

(citations omitted). It is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden

of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. The party’s failure to

plead facts that bring the suit within the court’s jurisdiction warrants dismissal of the case. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a), 12(h)(3).

        Federal district courts, such as this, have jurisdiction to hear a case when a “federal

question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount

in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” id. § 1332(a).

Parties are of diverse citizenship where “plaintiff [is not] 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)). It is a “well-established rule” that in order for an

action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time the suit is

filed,” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991), but an “allegation

of residence alone is insufficient to establish the citizenship” requirement, Novak v. Cap. Mgmt.

& Dev. Corp., 452 F.3d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

       Plaintiff, a resident of Dale City, Virginia, has sued an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the

District of Columbia, alleging that defendant has “repeatedly” harassed him “through emails and

calls so much” that his “blood pressure has sky-rocketed and [his] ulcers are really bothering” him.

Compl. at 4. Plaintiff seeks $250,000 in damages.

       Plaintiff provides no other factual basis for a legal claim against defendant but only checks

the “Federal question” box as the basis for jurisdiction. Compl. at 3. The Federal Tort Claims Act

(FTCA) waives the United States’ immunity for certain damages claims involving United States

employees. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2674, 2679-80. Before filing a lawsuit, an FTCA

claimant must exhaust his administrative remedies by presenting the claim to the appropriate

federal agency and obtaining a final written denial of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). If an agency

fails to render a decision within six months after the claim is submitted, the claimant may proceed

to court “any time thereafter” on what is “deemed” to be “a final denial.” Id. Nothing suggests

that plaintiff pursued, much less exhausted, his administrative remedies under the FTCA, and in

this circuit, the FTCA’s exhaustion requirement is “jurisdictional.” Simpkins v. D.C. Gov’t, 108

F.3d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)); Norton

v. United States, 530 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6-7 (D.D.C. 2021) (collecting cases). Therefore, this case

must be dismissed.

                                                 2
      A separate order reflecting this determination will be entered contemporaneously.

                                                  _________/s/___________
                                                  BERYL A. HOWELL
Date: December 28, 2023                           United States District Judge

                                              3