United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE
Tony Blasingim filed this pro se civil complaint (DN
1). Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides, “If the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.” As a review of the complaint reveals that this
Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter contained
therein, the Court will dismiss the action.
sues the Lourdes Emergency Room, and he alleges that
“[t]hey did not follow medical protocol.”
Further, Plaintiff explains that he was taken by ambulance to
the emergency room at Lourdes on October 25, 2016. Plaintiff
states that he showed the doctor his toe and told the doctor
his concerns about his toe. Plaintiff states that the doctor
“did not order any tests or pictures” of
Plaintiff's toe before releasing him. According to
Plaintiff, he subsequently saw a podiatrist. Plaintiff states
that the podiatrist told him that his toe had gangrene and
that he should have been admitted to the hospital. Plaintiff
states that he “still may lose [his] toe . . . and [he]
could've died over there neglect.”
axiomatic that federal district courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, and their powers are enumerated in Article III
of the Constitution and in statutes enacted by Congress.
Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S.
534, 541 (1986); see generally, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1330-1364. Therefore, “[t]he first and
fundamental question presented by every case brought to the
federal courts is whether it has jurisdiction to hear a case,
even where the parties concede or do not raise or address the
issue.” Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Assocs.,
Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 606-07 (6th Cir. 1998). Without
jurisdiction, courts have no power to act. Id. at
606. The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests with the
plaintiff. Hedgepeth v. Tennessee, 215 F.3d 608, 611
(6th Cir. 2000); Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Assocs.,
Inc., 150 F.3d at 606.
this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to
be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972), the duty “does not require us to conjure up
unpled allegations.” McDonald v. Hall, 610
F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979). Additionally, this Court is not
required to create a claim for Plaintiff. Clark v.
Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167,
1169 (6th Cir. 1975). In fact, to do so would require the
“courts to explore exhaustively all potential claims of
a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the
district court from its legitimate advisory role to the
improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest
arguments and most successful strategies for a party.”
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278
(4th Cir. 1985).
has failed to meet his burden of establishing this
Court's jurisdiction. First, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
the diversity-of-citizenship statute, “The district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . .
. citizens of different States; . . . .” There must be
“complete diversity between the plaintiffs and
defendants, i.e., ‘diversity jurisdiction does not
exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a
different State from each plaintiff.'”
Medlen v. Estate of Meyers, 273 F. App'x 464,
469 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Owen Equip. &
Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978))
(emphasis in Owen). According to the complaint,
Plaintiff is a citizen of Kentucky and resides in Paducah,
Kentucky, and Defendant is a hospital located in and doing
business in Paducah, Kentucky. Thus, the complaint fails to
satisfy the complete diversity-of-citizenship requirement.
For this reason, Plaintiff cannot bring any state-law claims
by way of the federal diversity statute.
under the federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
“district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” Plaintiff is alleging
medical negligence on the part of Defendant. He does not
allege any violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States. Nor is the Court aware of any authority
under which Plaintiff may invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court to remedy the wrong about which he complains. Thus,
this Court does not have federal-question jurisdiction over
even a liberal reading of the complaint leads this Court to
conclude that Plaintiff has failed to establish this
Court's jurisdiction, the instant action must be
dismissed. The Court ...