Spencer v. Dep't of Human Servs.
| Decision Date | 08 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 23-0798 (UNA) |
| Parties | PRINCESS MARIA SPENCER, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and her civil complaint.
Plaintiff “would like a benefit awards letter and an explanation of benefits” from the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services, through which she has received Supplemental Nutritional Assistant Program benefits in recent months. See Compl. at 1. The complaint neither alleges facts establishing that a demand for benefits from the District of Columbia presents a federal question, nor otherwise establishes grounds for this Court's jurisdiction.
Insofar as plaintiff challenges a determination made by the Department of Human Services, it appears that her recourse, if any, may be before the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings, not federal district court. See Brooks v. District of Columbia, 375 F.Supp.3d 41, 49 (D.D.C. 2019), aff'd sub nom. Patten v. District of Columbia, 9 F.4th 921 (D.C. Cir. 2021), cert denied, 142 S.Ct. 1129 (2022); D.C. Code § 2-1813.03(a)(2); see also Malone v. District of Columbia, No. 22-cv-3527, 2022 WL 17496215, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2022)
2
( challenge to OAH determination because appeal must be taken to District of Columbia Court of Appeals).
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). This plaintiff has not done so and, therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
An Order is issued separately.
To continue reading
Request your trial