\\\\

§ § it § §§
.|UN §§ ii 2833
Clerk, U.S. District and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) Banl<ruptcy Courts
Julia Miller, )
Plaintiff, §
v. § Civil Action No.  
College Financial Advisory, §
Defendant. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se complaint.
The application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction

The complaint asserts that the defendant, which appears to be an on-line non-profit

organization (wvvw.collegefinadv.org), has been non-responsive to her requests for information

and service. Compl. at l, 2. The complaint asks "the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia to validate that the[] agency is not fraudulent, scheming, or cunning on the public."
Ia’. at 2. The complaint also "would like to know if the[] agency intends on giving [the plaintiff]
access to other financial aid programs and services [and whether it will] accommodate [the
plaintiff s] proposal from wvvw.applestore.com, . . . ." Id.

P1aintiff apparently misunderstands the work of a federal district court. A federal court is
a court of limited jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guara'ian Lzfe Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(l994), which is restricted to hearing and deciding actual cases or controversies. "No principle is

more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the

constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies." Simon v.
Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976) (quoted in Raines v. Byra', 521
U.S. 811, 818 (1997) and Daz'mlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006)). The
complaint in this case does not identify any case or controversy. lt also does not identify any
injury the plaintiff has suffered because of defendant’s actions, which is an essential component
ofa case or controversy. See Lujan v. Defena’ers of Wildlz`fe, 54 U.S. 555, 559 (1992).
Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: Unit§{'§cates District Judge

