UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MONTRELL GREEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-0177 (UNA) ) COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis (ECF No. 2) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court GRANTS the application

and DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff resides in the District of Columbia. See Compl. at 1. In relevant part, the

complaint alleges plaintiff “moved and asked several time and was told I would get my mail

from apt. but never got any[.]” Id. at 4. In this action, plaintiff demands he “get [his] mail plus

having housing manager arrested for holding and possibly looking at mail.” Id.

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 when 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

1 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).

This case does not present a federal question, and “obstruction of correspondence,”

Compl. at 3, is not a valid basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Because all the parties reside or

conduct business in the District of Columbia, and because plaintiff does not indicate that the

amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold, see Compl. at 4, plaintiff fails to

demonstrate complete diversity between the parties.

Insofar as plaintiff demands defendant’s arrest, there is no recourse in federal district

court. The decision to prosecute a criminal case is left to the discretion of the Executive Branch

of government. See Shoshone–Bannock Tribes v. Reno,

(D.C. Cir. 1995)

(citations omitted); see also Cox v. Sec’y of Labor,

(D.D.C. 1990) (citing

cases).

A separate order will issue.

DATE: February 18, 2025 /s/ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge

2