FILED
NOV 19 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District and
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy Courts
Joan Francis Mary Malone, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. O~ 2185
)
District of Columbia Housing Authority, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on consideration of plaintiffs pro se complaint and
application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the
complaint.
Unlike state courts of general jurisdiction, federal district courts have limited jurisdiction.
A federal district court has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or
treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, however, the complaint asserts claims
or facts supporting claims for common law torts including, among other things, harassment, libel,
slander, trespass, breach of contract, negligence, and destruction of property. Although the
opening paragraph of the complaint describes it as one for "discrimination," there are no facts
alleging or otherwise stating or implying that the plaintiff is a member of a protected group or
that any defendant has acted on the basis of discriminatory animus. Therefore, the Court is
unable to discern a basis for jurisdiction under § 1331.
A federal district court also has jurisdiction over civil actions in matters where the
controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. See 28 C.F.R. § 1332(a).
But here it appears that both plaintiff and defendants are citizens of the District of Columbia.
Therefore, there is also no federal court jurisdiction under § 1332(a).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
Date: 10 / l-1 I0' ~~
~ United StatesDis