MINTER v. DELMASTRO et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Trevor N. McFadden on 05/25/2022. (zjm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MICHAEL CHARLES MINTER,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
AMANDA BLAIR DELMASTRO, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01253 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Michael Charles Minter has filed a pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court will grant the IFP
application, and for the reasons explained below, will dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
Minter, a resident of Albany, Oregon, sues Amanda Blair Delmastro, a resident of Portland,
Oregon. He also sues unspecified John and/or Jane Does. As to the latter, however, the Local
Rules of this court state that a plaintiff “filing pro se in forma pauperis must provide in the
[complaint] caption the name and full residence address or official address of each defendant.”
D.C. LCvR 5.1(c)(1).
Minter alleges that Delmastro has stalked, harassed, and threatened his
“household, church, church members,” causing him “extreme emotional distress.” He contends
that, despite police intervention, Delmastro persists in this behavior. He demands damages and a
permanent restraining order against her.
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
1
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).
First, Minter’s claims unquestionably fail to raise a federal question. Second, both Minter
and Delmastro are located in Oregon, so there can be no diversity jurisdiction. See 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)) (“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.”). Therefore, this court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over
this matter. Third, there is absolutely no connection raised between the subject matter of this
lawsuit, or the parties, to the District of Columbia, therefore, Minter has also failed to establish
venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
For all of these reasons, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate order
accompanies this memorandum opinion.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
United States District Judge
Dated: May 25, 2022
2
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?