Pridget v. Hill et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 8/3/2016. (c/m 8/3/16 ca2s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MONIKA HILL, et al.,
Civil Action No. GLR-16-1497
Pridget’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No.
The Court will grant Pridget’s Motion.
For the reasons that
follow, however, the Court will dismiss her Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (2012).
Mayor’s Office of Employment
Development, Pridget met Defendant Monika Hill, who touted her
ability to file tax returns.
(ECF No. 1).
Pridget agreed to have
Hill complete her 2012 tax return, but later asked Hill, by phone
and email, not to file her tax return after she learned that Hill
would charge $500.
Nonetheless, Hill prepared and filed
Pridget’s tax return and “had the money routed to a money card
(NetSpend) as well as another card for an authorized user by the
name of Charmaine Jones.”
Pridget maintains that Hill and
Jones “stole” her tax return and by the time she realized where the
The Court has taken the facts in this section from Pridget’s
Complaint (ECF No. 1).
return was, all of the funds were “exhausted.”
confronted Hill, and Hill stated that she did not file Pridget’s
As relief, Pridget seeks $3,000 in damages and
Because she seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must
screen Pridget’s Complaint.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012);
Michau v. Charleston Cty., S.C., 434 F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006).
The Court may consider subject matter jurisdiction as part of its
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 action.”); Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet
Eng’g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir. 2004). (“[Q]uestions of
subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any point during the
proceedings and may (or, more precisely, must) be raised sua sponte
by the court.”).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”
Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Hanna, 750 F.3d 427, 432 (4th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction
over civil actions that arise under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331
citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2012).
The Court has carefully reviewed Pridget’s Complaint and finds
that Pridget has not alleged a federal claim.
At best, she alleges
tortious conduct or breach of contract on the part of Hill.
Pridget, however, alleges neither complete diversity nor more than
$75,000 in controversy.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that it
does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, and the
Court will dismiss Pridget’s Complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, Pridget’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED and her Complaint
(ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.
The Court will direct the Clerk to CLOSE
A separate Order follows.
Entered this 3rd day of August, 2016
George L. Russell, III
United States District Court Judge
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?