Opinion
24-1033
07-25-2024
HARRY ROSS RAPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SSM AGNESIAN HEALTH, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Submitted July 24, 2024[*]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 23-CV-1603-JPS J. P. Stadtmueller, Judge.
Before ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
ORDER
Harry Rapp, a citizen of Wisconsin, sued pat Guell, also of Wisconsin, plus SSM Agnesian Health, a hospital in Wisconsin (operating under "SSM Health St. Agnes Hospital"), and Kimberly Rogers, from Colorado, for injuries from an incident at SSM.
The district court screened his complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and correctly dismissed it without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We thus affirm.
Rapp alleges that Rogers had Guell photograph Rapp's wife as she lay in hospice at SSM in Wisconsin. He accuses Rogers, Guell, and SSM, of violating his and his late wife's privacy, inflicting "malicious" distress, committing elder abuse, and negligence. Because Rapp asked for leave to sue in forma pauperis, the district court screened his complaint, see § 1915(e)(2), and dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court noted that Rapp brought only state-law claims and that two of the defendants appeared to be citizens of the same state as Rapp, destroying complete diversity of citizenship. Also because Rapp did not describe a violation of federal law or allege that the defendants acted under color of state law, federal-question jurisdiction was absent. The court allowed Rapp to amend his complaint to cure these defects. It also warned Rapp his failure to do so would result in the suit's dismissal without prejudice.
Rapp amended his complaint but did not address the identified defects: He did not address the observation that two defendants had the same state citizenship as Rapp, allege that the defendants acted under color of state law, or invoke federal law. The court dismissed the suit without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
On appeal, Rapp argues that his suit arises under federal-question jurisdiction, but we disagree. To invoke federal-question jurisdiction, a complaint must state a claim arising under federal law. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1331; E. Cent. Ill. Pipe Trades Health &Welfare Fund v. Prather Plumbing &Heating, Inc., 3 F.4th 954, 958-59 (7th Cir. 2021) (explaining federal-question jurisdiction). Rapp states in his notice of appeal that the defendants violated his "federal" right to "a reasonable expectation of privacy." Because he does not elaborate, we assume that he is referring to a federal right under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. But this right is imposed against federal or state government actors. See, e.g., DiDonato v. Panatera, 24 F.4th 1156, 1159 (7th Cir. 2022) (state actors under Fourteenth Amendment); United States v. Bebris, 4 F.4th 551, 560 (7th Cir. 2021) (federal actors under Fourth Amendment). Rapp did not allege that the defendants are such actors; rather, he stressed that the defendants are private actors.
Nor does Rapp demonstrate that jurisdiction is secured by diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the other potential ground for federal jurisdiction. Rapp does not contest the district court's observation that he and two of the defendants appeared to be citizens of the same state (Wisconsin): First, Rapp alleged that Guell resides only in Wisconsin, and even though residence is not synonymous with citizenship, the district court properly required Rapp to allege Guell's citizenship. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1). Second, SSM appeared to be a Wisconsin citizen because it is incorporated in Wisconsin as SSM Health Care Corporation, see Wis. Dep't of Fin. Inst., Search Corporate Records, https://apps.dfi.wi.gov/apps/corpSearch/Search.aspx (search "SSM Health Care Corporation"), and a corporation is a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated, § 1332(c)(1). The longstanding rule is that federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship requires "complete diversity" between the parties-the plaintiff cannot be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); Page v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 2 F.4th 630, 636 (7th Cir. 2021). The district court gave Rapp a chance to allege in an amended complaint the diversity of citizenship between these two defendants and Rapp. But he did not, despite his obligation under Rule 8(a)(1) to state the grounds of federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed his case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
[*] The appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. p. 34(a)(2)(C).