FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NOV f 9 2009
Clerk, U.S. District and
Milton Joseph Taylor, ) Bankruptcy Courts
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. Og ~19f)
)
D.C. Housing Authority et aI., )
)
Defendants. )
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 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 District of Columbia resident, sues the District of Columbia Housing
Authority, its regional administrator, a residential manager and the Housing Authority's attorneys
for "threatening to evict" him from the Barry Farm Dwellings for non-payment of late rental fees
and utility fees. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and an order staying the eviction proceedings.
Although plaintiff has invoked the Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments to the
I~
Constitution, Compi. at 2, 8, he has stated no facts supporting constitutional violations. See Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) ("[A] plaintiffs obligation to provide
the "grounds" of his "entitle [ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do .... Factual allegations must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]") (citations omitted); accord
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1951 (2009) ("bare assertions" of "constitutional
discrimination claim" are "not entitled to be assumed true"). J Because the complaint neither
presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are
not of diverse citizenship, it will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
Date: October ,;1.. (",2009 United States District Judge
J The complaint and attachments show that plaintiff received the process due him under
the Fifth Amendment in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, where plaintiff alleges that he was forced to enter "into a consent judgment ... to pay
$1,295." CompI. at 5. This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the local court proceedings. See
Flemingv. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150
(1995).
2