Case Information

*1

FILLED
JUN 262017
Lisa Hubbard,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
Clerk, U.S. District &; Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
1) Civil Action No. 17-1210 (UNA)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" if 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. $\S \S 1331$ 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. $\S 1332$ , 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)). 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).

*2 Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, has sued eight individuals who also reside in the District of Columbia. See Compl. Caption. Plaintiff complains about mold in her public housing unit and seeks $\$500,000$ in money damages. The complaint's allegations do not present a federal question, and the case cannot proceed under the diversity statute because plaintiff and the defendants share the same citizenship. Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: June 23, 2017