Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-12482-GAO
12-09-2016
LORRAINE SMYTHWICK, Plaintiff, v. DR. STEPHANIE BERMAN and DR. ALAN SCOTT SHIKOVA Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. Background
On December 7, 2016, pro se litigant Lorraine Smythwick filed in this Court a civil complaint against Dr. Stephanie Berman and Dr. Alan Scott Shikova of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. According to the plaintiff, "Dr. Shikora and his team falsely treated [her] with surgery and meds" in regards to treatment that she received from them beginning in March 2016. Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 4, 6. Smythwick further claims that the defendants "gave [her] phamacutical drugs to hurt me and made 4 holes in my intestants [sic]." Id. at 5. The plaintiff also avers that she, her children, and grandchildren "are being threatened and abuse" and that her offspring "had to leave [her] house in order not to be hurt if [she] say[s] anything about what's happening." Id. at 7. Smythwick does not offer any further information concerning any connection between her medical treatment and the threats to her family. In addition, she filed a one-sentence motion for emergency relief (ECF No. 3), claiming, "My children and grandchildren are being threatened and abused."
II. Discussion
"Federal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, may not presume the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, but rather, must appraise their own authority to hear and determine particular cases." Calderon-Serra v. Wilmington Trust Co., 715, F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708, 712 (1st Cir. 1998)). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Upon review of the complaint, the Court determines that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Federal district courts may exercise jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("§ 1331"), and over certain actions in which the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ("§ 1332"). "For purposes of diversity, a person is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled." Padilla-Mangual v. Pavia Hosp., 516 F.3d 29, 31 (1st Cir. 2008). Where a party seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal district court under § 1332, the parties must be of complete diversity of citizenship. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Complete diversity of citizenship does not exist where any defendant and any plaintiff are citizens of the same state. See id.
Here, the Court cannot discern a basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over Smythwick's claims. The plaintiff does not identify, neither can the Court discern, a claim arising under federal law. Rather, this action appears to arise under state tort law or state laws concerning medical malpractice. Subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331 therefore does not exist. The plaintiff represents that she and the defendants are both citizens of Massachusetts. For that reason, this action does not meet the diversity of citizenship requirement of § 1332.
III. Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This dismissal does not preclude the plaintiff from asserting her claims in state court. The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for emergency relief shall be terminated as moot. SO ORDERED. 12/9/2016
DATE
/s/ George A. O'Toole, Jr.
GEORGE A. O'TOOLE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE