UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILED
AUG 10 2021
SHAUN RUSHING, ) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
) Court for the District of Columbia
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-2100 (UNA)
)
)
CITY OF CAPE GIRADEAU, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and his Complaint. The application will be granted, and this
case will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court
to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
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. “For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 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.” Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen
Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)). It is a “well-established rule”
that for an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time
the suit is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).
1
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.
Plaintiff is a resident of Grand Rapids, Michigan, who has sued the City of Cape Giradeau
in an unspecified State for “$110 Trillion dollars.” In the one-page pleading, plaintiff alleges that
he was not paid “for performing officers’ duties.” Plaintiff has neither specified the basis of federal
court jurisdiction nor pled sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction. Further, the citizenship of each
party is not “distinctly” alleged, Meng v. Schwartz, 305 F. Supp. 2d 49, 55 (D.D.C. 2004), to
proceed under the diversity statute. Therefore, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. A
separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_________/s/_______________
EMMET G. SULLIVAN
United States District Judge
Date: August 10, 2021
2