STALLWORTH v. BRYANT AND STRATTON COLLEGE, No. 1:2023cv02560 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Jia M. Cobb on 10/24/2023. (zljn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
STALLWORTH v. BRYANT AND STRATTON COLLEGE Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROKEISHA SHARRON STALLWORTH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) BRYANT AND STRATTON COLLEGE, ) ) Defendant. ) Civil Action No. 23-02560 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). The jurisdiction of the federal district courts 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). Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident who has sued the online division of a private college in Buffalo, New York, for $25,000. ECF No. 1 at 1-2, 4. Allegedly, Plaintiff has an Dockets.Justia.com associate degree in Human Resources and is pursuing a bachelor’s degree. Id. at 3. Plaintiff refers only to “an issue on a case about long period . . . of time” at the college, id., which is reason enough to dismiss the complaint as “absolutely devoid of merit.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536– 37 (1974). Furthermore, Plaintiff checks federal question as the jurisdictional basis, ECF No. 1 at 3, but has not invoked “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order. _________/s/____________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge Date: October 24, 2023 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.
