BROOKS v. FULWOOD et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/12/13.(ah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MELVIN D. BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.

ISAAC FULWOOD, JR. et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-0273 (RC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Melvin D. Brooks is detained at the District of Columbia’s Central Detention
Facility as a result of his arrest on December 14, 2012, pursuant to a parole violator warrant.
Complaint [Dkt. # 1] at 2. He claims that he has yet to receive a probable cause hearing in
accordance with parole regulations and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. See id. at 310. Plaintiff sues United States Parole Commission Chairman Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Department of
Corrections Director Thomas N. Faust, and Warden G. Futch. Plaintiff also sues the Washington
Examiner newspaper for defamation. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss this
action without prejudice.
The claim against the three named defendants responsible for plaintiff’s custody is based
on the same facts underlying plaintiff’s action for a writ of habeas corpus pending before the
undersigned judge. See Brooks v. Fulwood, Civ. Action No. 13-135, Emergency Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus and for an Expedited Hearing [Dkt. # 1]. Furthermore, in this action, as
in the earlier case, plaintiff “requests that this court . . . issue a writ of habeas corpus directing
that he be brought before this court for a hearing . . . .” Compl. at 11. In the habeas action, the
1

Court has ordered the government to show cause why the writ should not issue. See Civ. Action
No. 13-135, Order (Feb. 20, 2013). Hence, the instant complaint against Chairman Fulwood,
Director Faust, and Warden Futch will be dismissed as duplicative of the pending habeas action.
See MBI Group, Inc. v. Credit Foncier du Cameroun, Civ. Action No. 07-0637, 2009 WL
8731182, at *1 (D.D.C. March 23, 2009) (“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets
efficiently . . . .”) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)).
With regard to plaintiff’s unrelated defamation claim against the Washington Examiner,
the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The federal district courts have limited
jurisdiction conferred generally by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1332. As applicable to plaintiff’s
defamation claim, this Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, and is between . . . citizens of different
States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The complaint’s caption lists all of the parties as residing or
working in the District of Columbia, thereby defeating the requirement that the parties be of
diverse citizenship. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (diversity statute “applies
only to cases in which the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each
defendant”). Hence, the defamation claim will be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff’s
seeking redress in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
(requiring dismissal of a case “at any time” subject matter jurisdiction is found wanting). A
separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion

________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
Date: March 12, 2013

2