Rutledge v. Belniak et al
| Franklin E. Rutledge |
| Starling Physician, Robert Belniak, St. Francis Hospital, Starling Physicans and St. Francis Hospital - New England |
| 3:2023cv00657 |
| May 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Maria E Garcia |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
Order finding as moot #8 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court dismissed this case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on May 23, 2023. See Order Dismissing Case, ECF No. 7. Although it appears that the Plaintiff's motion and the Court's order likely crossed in the mail, the Clerk of the Court is directed to mail another copy of the 7 Order Dismissing Case to Plaintiff at his address of record. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 6/1/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Franklin E. Rutledge. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER: Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only over matters in which a federal question is raised or there is diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332. The Court is under an obligation to review every complaint and sua sponte raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction. Vera v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A., 946 F.3d 120, 135 (2d Cir. 2019). Diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a); see E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Accident & Cas. Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 925, 930 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[F]or diversity jurisdiction to be available, all of the adverse parties in a suit must be completely diverse with regard to citizenship."). Federal question jurisdiction exists where the action "aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 1331. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, "a suit 'arises under' federal law 'only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].'" Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (quoting Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)). Upon review of the Complaint, it is clear that the Court's diversity jurisdiction is not implicated, as both the Plaintiff and the Defendants are citizens of Connecticut. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2); Herrick Co. v. SCS Commc'ns, Inc., 251 F.3d 315, 322 (2d Cir. 2001). It is likewise clear that there is no federal question jurisdiction, as the underlying Complaint sounds only in medical malpractice, and it is well established that "a medical malpractice claim is a state law claim that is neither created by federal law nor necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Gilmore v. Rensselaer Cnty. Med. Exam'r, No. 1:22-CV-0292 (BKS/ML), 2022 WL 1985664, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. June 3, 2022) (quotations omitted), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:22-CV-292 (BKS/ML), 2022 WL 2827514 (N.D.N.Y. July 20, 2022); Johnson v. Hilton, No. 3:22CV00110 (SALM), 2022 WL 486972, at *2 (D. Conn. Feb. 17, 2022) ("Plaintiff mentions medical malpractice and insurance fraud in his Complaint; neither sounds in federal law."); Nachbaur v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 101 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1996) (unpublished opinion) (affirming dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where "the gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint is a medical malpractice claim"). Plaintiff cites no federal law, treaty, or constitutional provision in his Complaint and, even reading the pro se Complaint liberally, the Court cannot discern a non-frivolous federal claim by which the Court's federal question jurisdiction may be invoked. As such, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff may pursue his medical malpractice claims in the Superior Court for the State of Connecticut.Accordingly, the Court sua sponte dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 5/23/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 5/19/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 5
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 5/19/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 7/18/2023 Discovery due by 11/18/2023 Dispositive Motions due by 12/23/2023 Signed by Clerk on 5/19/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
| Judge Kari A. Dooley and Judge Maria E. Garcia added. (Shafer, J.) |
| Filing 3 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 5/19/2023.(Gaskins, A.) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER: We received your Complaint which has been assigned case number 23cv657. In order to proceed, the filing fee or a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis must be submitted to the Court by 6/18/2023 or the case will be subject to dismissal. Fee information and the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form may be found on the Court's website at ctd.uscourts.gov. Dismissal due by 6/18/2023 Signed by Clerk on 5/19/2023. (Gaskins, A.)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Robert Belniak, St. Francis Hospital, Starling Physician, filed by Franklin E. Rutledge. (Attachments: #1 exhibit, #2 envelope) (Gaskins, A.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
