BUTLER v. JOHN, No. 1:2023cv01974 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Trevor N. McFadden on 7/25/2023. (zrtw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BUTLER v. JOHN Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM N. BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01974 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons explained below, the IFP application will be granted, and this matter will be dismissed without prejudice. 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. “For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 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, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373–74 (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). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Here, plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., sues an individual identified only as “John,” with no other identifying or contact information, in contravention of D.C. Local Civil Rule Dockets.Justia.com 5.1(c)(1). The complaint itself fares no better. It contains a single statement, “somebody is looking,” providing neither factual allegations, nor any basis for this court’s jurisdiction or venue. Indeed, the relief sought is not even specified. Put simply, plaintiff has failed to provide any basis for this court’s jurisdiction, and this case will thus be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” if it determines that the subject matter jurisdiction is wanting). An order accompanies this memorandum opinion. Date: 7/25/2023 TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge
]]>
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.
