AMIRI v. GELMAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY et al, No. 1:2010cv00097 - Document 4 (D.D.C. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/7/2010. (ls, )

Download PDF

FILED JAN 20 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Abdul Wakil Amiri, Plaintiff, v. Gelman Management Co. et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. Clerk, U.S. District and 8ankruptcy Courts 10 0097 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed informa 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, a District of Columbia resident, sues a District of Columbia-based company for wrongful eviction and harassment. He seeks $18 million in damages. The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship. Plaintiffs recourse lies, if at all, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: January~, 2010 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.