UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EMPLOYEE #1,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 24-cv-00630 (DLF) UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES/DISABILITY RIGHTS DC,

Defendant.

ORDER

Employee 1, proceeding pro se and pseudonymously, filed his complaint in this action

against University Legal Services on March 5, 2024. In the complaint, he alleged counts of

defamation, conspiracy to defame, negligent infliction of distress, and invasion of privacy. Compl.

at 11, Dkt. 1. Prior to filing the complaint in this case, on January 12, 2024, Employee 1 filed an

amended complaint against University Legal Services in a preexisting lawsuit, also alleging

defamation and conspiracy to defame based on the same set of underlying facts. See Second

Amended Complaint at 63, No. 23-cv-2553, Dkt 37. On June 24, 2024, University Legal Services

filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in this case under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Motion to Dismiss at 1, No. 24-cv-630, Dkt. 10. Alternatively, University Legal

Services argued this case should be dismissed as duplicative of Employee 1’s previous action. Id.

On September 29, 2024, this Court dismissed with prejudice Employee 1’s claims against

University Legal Services in the original litigation, see Order, No. 23-cv-2553, Dkt. 55, for failure

to state a claim. Before the Court is the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 10 in this subsequent

case. The Court will dismiss Employee 1’s complaint in this case as well. Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and it is “presumed that a cause

lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). Employee 1’s complaint alleges to two bases for jurisdiction. First, he alleges this

Court has federal question jurisdiction under

. Compl. at 11, No. 24-cv-630.

Federal question jurisdiction arises when civil actions raise claims “arising under the Constitution,

laws, or treaties of the United States.”

. But defamation, negligent infliction of

emotional distress, and invasion of privacy claims are all state law claims. Cf. Bennett v. Google,

LLC,

(D.C. Cir 2018); Hudes v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,

(D.D.C. 2011). His complaint therefore does not raise a federal question.

Second, Employee 1 claims this Court has jurisdiction under

. That

section allows jurisdiction in cases “commenced by any person to recover damages for any injury

to his person or property on account of any act done by him, under any Act of Congress, for the

protection or collection of any of the revenues, or to enforce the right of citizens of the United

States to vote in any State.”

. But Employee does not allege that University

Legal Services injured him while attempting to collect taxes or protect voting rights. Thus, he

cannot avail himself of that provision. See Aloupis v. United States,

(11th

Cir. 2005).

Employee 1 resists this conclusion by raising three new jurisdictional arguments in his

motion to dismiss briefing. Opp’n, at 8, 16, No. 24-630, Dkt. 17. He claims that jurisdiction exists

under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, under the Occupational Safety and Health

Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651–678, and that University Legal Service’s actions violated his constitutional

rights to “liberty, life and property.” Opp’n at 7, No. 24-630, Dkt. 17. But Employee 1 failed to

offer these bases in his complaint. A plaintiff cannot cure defects in his complaint by raising new

2 claims in his opposition briefing. Budik v. Ashley,

(D.D.C. 2014). Thus,

the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt 10, dismisses

the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and directs the Clerk of Court to close the

case.

The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff’s address of record.

________________________ DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH October 2, 2024 United States District Judge

3