REED et al v. BATTLE et al, No. 1:2009cv02051 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on 10/16/09. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Robert Andrew Reed, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) OCT 3 0 2009 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts Civil Action No. O~ 2()51 ) Alexis Battle et al., Defendants. ) ) ) 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. ยงยง 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, a pretrial detainee I at the District of Columbia's Correctional Treatment Facility, sues two District of Columbia residents, Alexis and Antoinette Battle, and a District of Columbia detective, Scott Dowling, for "intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and conspiracy." Compl. at 5 (page number supplied). He seeks monetary damages exceeding $10 million. Plaintiff alleges that Antoinette Battle coerced her daughter Alexis to file a false I In a separately submitted petition for a writ of habeas corpus, plaintiff states that he is detained while awaiting trial for the charge resulting from the events underlying this case. criminal complaint against him as an act of retaliation. He accuses Dowling of allowing the filing of the complaint without an investigation. Id. Plaintiff concludes that defendants' "subjected[ed] [him] to cruel & unusual punishment thus in violation of plaintiff [sic] procedural due process rights of the eighth and fourteenth amendment[s] to the United States Constitution," id. at 5-6, but he states no supporting facts. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) ("[A] plaintiffs obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.") (citation omitted). The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship. The complaint therefore will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: October --L.b..-, 2009 United States District Judge 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.
