Honore-Richardson v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • l\\§
    FILED
    MAY 1 7 2311
    Cl€l’k. U.S. District & Bankruptcy
    courts for the District of columbia
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA
    Delliccia Sherrell Honore-Richardson,
    Plaintiff,
    v. Civil Action No.
    11 U91?
    Superior Court of the
    District of Columbia et al.,
    Defendants.
    §§/S§/§/&%/§/S/§R/§/
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiff s pro se complaint and
    application to proceed in forma pauperis The application will be granted and the complaint will
    be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(h)(3) (requiring the
    court to dismiss an action "at any time” it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
    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).
    Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing the Superior Court of the District of
    Columbia and "family court counsel for child abuse and neglect." Compl. Caption. The
    complaint stems from family court proceedings involving the removal by social service providers
    of plaintiff s infant daughter from the Washington Hospital Center’s nursery allegedly without
    plaintiff s knowledge. See generally Compl. Plaintiff seeks this Court’s assistance, but this
    Court lacks authority to review the decisions of the local court. See 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
    , 1332
    (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 
    847 F. Supp. 170
    , 172 (D.D.C.
    l994), cerl. denied 
    513 U.S. 1150
     (1995). Because the complaint neither presents a federal
    question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction, it will be dismissed. A separate Order
    accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    4 k/,A_._... § H(/¢Cjk.`/
    2 United States District Judge
    DATE: May / \, 2011
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2011-0917

Judges: Judge Ellen S. Huvelle

Filed Date: 5/17/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014