Davenport v. Beaumont Hospital ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ROYLEAN DAVENPORT, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 22-11624 v. Honorable Linda V. Parker BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, Defendant. ________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed this wrongful death lawsuit against Defendant and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff appears to be claiming that a physician at Defendant’s hospital in Farmington was negligent in treating Donald Brierley, whose relationship to Plaintiff is unclear from the Complaint. Mr. Brierley died at the hospital on January 15, 2018. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore is summarily dismissing the action without prejudice. “It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). “Unlike state trial courts, they do not have general jurisdiction to review questions of federal and state law, but only the authority to decide cases that the Constitution and Congress have empowered them to resolve.” Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549 F.3d 468, 474 (6th Cir. 2008). As a general rule, federal courts have jurisdiction only over matters arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1331, or where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of different states, 18 U.S.C. § 1332. Complete diversity exists only when “no plaintiff and no defendant are citizens of the same state.” Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, LLC, 176 F.3d 904, 907 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Thomas Solvent Co., 955 F.2d 1085, 1089 (6th Cir. 1992)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 436-37 (1974)). Even when read liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Plaintiff’s Complaint does not assert a claim arising under federal law. Diversity jurisdiction is lacking as Plaintiff and Defendant are Michigan citizens. And Plaintiff’s claims of medical malpractice and wrongful death are most properly pursued through the Michigan state courts. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff has a ripe and viable claim against Defendant, it should be filed in state court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiff’s Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: July 21, 2022 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, July 21, 2022, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail. s/Aaron Flanigan Case Manager