Julius v. Branch

- --------------- -------- -------------- ------

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OCT 1 7 2011 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Tyrone Julius, ) Courts for the District of ColumbIa ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. II lb~4 ) Ms. Branch, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in Jorma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff's 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" 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. 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).

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, apparently is suing a branch of TD Bank in the District of Columbia for damages exceeding $999 million. He appears to claim that his SmarTrip card is missing $20. The cryptic complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and plaintiff's monetary demand is incredibly out of proportion to the alleged injury and the minimal jurisdictional amount. See Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 555F.3d 873, 877 (3d Cir. 1995) ("The allegations on the face of the complaint control the amount in controversy unless it appears " 'to a legal certainty the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount .... ' ") (quoting Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 353 (1961)) (other citation omitted). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: October -12,2011 U