GRANT v. ARCURE et al
ORDER dismissing complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See text of Order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on July 1, 2014. (lcjdb1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TERRY LENNETTE GRANT,
Civil Action No. 14-1091 (JDB)
MARVIN H. DUKES, III, et al.,
This matter is before the Court on  plaintiff Terry Lennette Grant's pro se complaint
and  her motion for an emergency stay. The Court will dismiss this action for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. The subject-matter jurisdiction of 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 requires dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
Here, the complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity
jurisdiction. Grant is a resident of South Carolina, and she is suing a large group of defendants,
most of whom are also residents of South Carolina. The presence of South Carolina residents on
both sides of this action destroys the "complete diversity" required for federal diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (providing original jurisdiction in civil actions between
"citizens of different states"); see also Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005)
("Since Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806), we have read the statutory formulation
'between . . . citizens of different States' to require complete diversity between all plaintiffs and
all defendants."). Moreover, Grant's complaint appears to present no questions of federal law:
she brings various state common-law claims arising out of the purchase of a piece of real
property in South Carolina, and the impending foreclosure of that property. These claims belong
in the South Carolina court system; this action does not "aris[e] under" any source of federal law.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."). Hence, it is hereby
ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; it is
ORDERED that  Grant's motion for an emergency stay is DENIED AS MOOT; it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the
address listed on the docket; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, via
facsimile, at the following number: (843) 681-4330.
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge
Dated: July 1, 2014
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?