COLLINGTON v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES et al, No. 1:2012cv01017 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 6/18/2012. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUN 2 1 2012 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia William Hugh Collington, Plaintiff, v. Department ofHuman Resources et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 12 1017 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing Ricco Harris, Director of the Community for Creative Non-Violence ("CCNY") located in the District, "for mental anguish, violation of my civil rights and the tort of 'conversion."' Compl. at I. Although plaintiff also names the District's Department of Human Resources and Department of Human Services as defendants, the complaint's rambling allegations implicate only Harris in any wrongdoing. Plaintiff alleges that during a verbal exchange with Harris on May 26, 20 II, he requested to be excused from an apparent curfew set by CCNY's homeless shelter to attend to his "$400 new used-car," but Harris "ignored [plaintiffs] request ... and call[ed] #9II the D.C. Protective Police to have [plaintiff] forcibly evicted from [his] car and imprison[ed]." !d. at I-2. Plaintiff states, inter alia, that Harris' "legal right was to have me evicted from the shelter but not from my own car." !d. at 3. Plaintiff appears to blame Harris for the subsequent loss of his personal property, including his birth certificate and social security card, while also accusing Harris of using his personal property. See id. at 2. He seeks $200,000 in damages. !d. at 4. The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff and Harris reside in the District. See Bush v. Butler, 52 I F. Supp. 2d 63, 7I (D.D.C. 2007) ("For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § I332, 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.") (citations omitted). 1 A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: June 1 / ~ 20I2 United States District Judge Plaintiffs recourse may lie, if at all, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
