, .
FILED
NOV 302009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, u.s. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
Fallon Brizendine, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09 2275
)
Charles Herbold, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed
informa 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, a resident of Frederick, Maryland, sues a resident of the District of Columbia
for an alleged debt of $14, 465.00 "accrued over a 2-year period." Compi. at 1. The complaint
neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the
amount in controversy is well below the minimum amount for diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. 1 A separate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
/I ~ <.,.J".,
Date: ~r _ _ , ~009
l
United States DistrIct Judge
-
1 Presumably, plaintiffs recourse lies in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
2