Colbert v. Hamilton County Department of Health and Human Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I L E D ) NOV 2 8 2011

Antonio Colbert’ ) C|Zltai~:r;kl:.$.t£»isérict and u ) p cy ourts

Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. )

Hamilton County Dep’t of )

Health and Human Services, ) )

Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINlON

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff’ s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii). Under that statute, the Court is required to dismiss a case "at any time" it determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff lists his address as a Post Office Box in the District of Columbia. He sues the Hamilton County Department of Health and Human Services in Cincinnati, Ohio, for 310 million "in restitution for their fraudulance [sic]." In his one-paragraph complaint, plaintiff alleges only that defendant "refused to provide adquite [sic] assistance, neglecting my rights or necessity as a taxpayer!"

Plaintiff` s cryptic allegation fails to state a cognizable claim over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity actions). See Bell Allantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (A plaintiffs "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .") (citations omitted); Aktieselskabet AF 21 . N0v. 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 16 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("[A] complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims."); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ("In alleging fraud . . ., a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud . . . ."). Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. /4.

Un1ted States District Judge

Date: November g 201 l