CHAPMAN v. HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 1/14/2013. (ls, )

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JAN 17 2013
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia

Nathan A. Chapman Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Howard University,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.13

0070

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs prose complaint and application to proceed

in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff'~ 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 is a resident of Baltimore, Maryland, suing Howard University in the District of
Columbia for breach of contract. He demands $60,000. Compl. at 10. Plaintiff has not pleaded
a sufficient amount in controversy to bring this case within the Court's diversity jurisdiction, and
the complaint does not present a federal question. Hence, this case will be dismissed. Plaintiffs

(N)

recourse lies, if at all, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. A separate Order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: January

____jj__, 2013

2