Opinion
No. 3:05-CV-0059-D.
March 14, 2005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
Type Case: This is a medical malpractice case.
Parties: This case is brought by a pro se litigant who has been granted in forma pauperis status. Defendant is alleged to be a podiatrist with an address in Dallas, TX. Process has not been issued in this case.
Findings and Conclusions:
The court has permitted Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. Her complaint is, thus, subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which imposes a screening responsibility on the district court. Section 1915 reads in pertinent part as follows:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . .
(B) the action or appeal —
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915(e)(2).
A complaint is frivolous, if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102 (1957).
Plaintiff has asserted a cause of action predicated on medical malpractice. Before addressing the complaint, the court must first examine the threshold question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. That is an issue of paramount concern, and should be addressed, sua sponte if necessary, at the inception of any federal action. System Pipe Supply, Inc. v. M/V Viktor Kurnatovsky, 242 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 2001); Moody v. Empire Life Ins. Co., 849 F.2d 902, 904 (5th Cir. 1988).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Therefore, a complaint must identify the basis on which jurisdiction is invoked. See, e.g. Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff has failed to indicate on what grounds she alleges that this court has jurisdiction. The United States government is not a party to this action and Plaintiff has alleged medical malpractice under Texas law. Therefore, the only possible basis on which jurisdiction might rest is diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has failed to allege damages sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. In addition, the evidence shows that Plaintiff and Defendant are both residents of Texas. See Pl. Compl. at cover and at attachments. Therefore, diversity jurisdiction cannot exist. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This court must therefore dismiss Plaintiff's cause of action, as it lacks jurisdiction to hear it. RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
A copy of this recommendation shall be sent to Plaintiff.