UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 08 2019 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy

AMARE EL BEY, ) Courts for the District of Columbia ) Plaintiff, ) )

Vv. ) Civil Action No. 19-2174 (UNA)

) ALPEN AKAW, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs 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” 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

and 1332. Under these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available 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

, 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,

(D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,

(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).

According to the plaintiff, the defendant is attempting to acquire the plaintiff's residence through unlawful means. The complaint is not based on a federal question, and both parties are citizens of the District of Columbia for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. As a result, this case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

Lop 6

DATE: August 8 , 2019

United States District Judge