FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUN 2 1 2012
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
)
William Hugh Collington, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12 1017
)
Department ofHuman Resources et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs 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 of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing Ricco Harris, Director of the
Community for Creative Non-Violence ("CCNY") located in the District, "for mental anguish,
violation of my civil rights and the tort of 'conversion."' Compl. at I. Although plaintiff also
names the District's Department of Human Resources and Department of Human Services as
defendants, the complaint's rambling allegations implicate only Harris in any wrongdoing.
Plaintiff alleges that during a verbal exchange with Harris on May 26, 20 II, he requested to be
excused from an apparent curfew set by CCNY's homeless shelter to attend to his "$400 new
used-car," but Harris "ignored [plaintiffs] request ... and call[ed] #9II the D.C. Protective
Police to have [plaintiff] forcibly evicted from [his] car and imprison[ed]." !d. at I-2. Plaintiff
states, inter alia, that Harris' "legal right was to have me evicted from the shelter but not from
my own car." !d. at 3. Plaintiff appears to blame Harris for the subsequent loss of his personal
property, including his birth certificate and social security card, while also accusing Harris of
using his personal property. See id. at 2. He seeks $200,000 in damages. !d. at 4.
The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity
jurisdiction because plaintiff and Harris reside in the District. See Bush v. Butler, 52 I F. Supp.
2d 63, 7I (D.D.C. 2007) ("For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § I332, 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.") (citations omitted). 1 A separate Order of dismissal
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
United States District Judge
Date: June / ~ 20I2
1
Plaintiffs recourse may lie, if at all, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
2