Fl( f!O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 2 4 .-. ··~
Clerk, us . ~- ..,
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Couii8 •Dr the !Strict & Bankruptcy
«' ·0
Dlstr;
ct ot Columbia
Michael A. Leon, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 13 0100
)
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & )
Stewart, P.C., et al., )
)
Defendanfs. )
'
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff's application and dismiss the complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
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 ofthe action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff is a resident of Tucson, Arizona, suing a professional corporation in South
Carolina and the United States. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff sues defendants for intentional infliction
of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and slander. !d. at 8-10. With
respect to the private defendants, plaintiff has not pleaded an amount in controversy to bring this
N
case within the Court's diversity jurisdiction. With respect to the United States, plaintiff invokes
the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), Compl. ~ 1, but he has not indicated that he exhausted
his administrative remedies under the FTCA by "first present[ing] the claim to the appropriate
Federal agency." 28 U.S.C. § 2675. Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his claim under the FTCA
deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 168 Fed.Appx.
445, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("[T]he district court properly dismissed case [based on
unexhausted FTCA claim] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."); accord Jones v. US., 296
Fed. Appx. 82, 83 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate
Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
flmtPtt 11 C4_/
1Jl1ited Stales District Judge
DATE: January lei '2013
2