UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTINA HAWKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-1072 (UNA) ) MATTHEW DAVIES, ) ) Defendant. )

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.

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

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).

As far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff, who resides in the District of Columbia,

attempts to bring legal malpractice and other tort claims against a Defendant for whom she

provides a District of Columbia address. This case does not present a federal question. Because

1 both parties appear to reside or conduct business in the District of Columbia, and because the

amount in controversy does not exceed the $75,000 threshold, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate

diversity jurisdiction. Finally, the one word mention of “discrimination” is insufficient to invoke

the federal antidiscrimination laws.

A separate Order will issue.

/s/ RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge DATE: June 10, 2025

2