Roundtree-McCrorey v. ECHN et al
| Queen-Princess Aryaknie Roundtree-McCrorey |
| ECHN and Vernon Police Department |
| 3:2023cv01430 |
| October 30, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Robert M Spector |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1986 Neglect of Duty |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 29, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff has filed this action pro se alleging Defendants violated several federal regulations after medical staff ordered that she leave a hospital waiting room and contacted the police. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that, if the Court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claims by November 17, 2023. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's order. Because it appears all parties are citizens of Connecticut, Plaintiff may not rely on diversity jurisdiction to bring her claims in federal court. The Court cannot find that Plaintiff may rely on federal question jurisdiction, either. The federal regulations Plaintiff cites pertain to actions on federal property, see, e.g., 41 C.F.R. 102-74.445, and there is no allegation that the property on which the incidents occurred is federal property; nor is it clear that any of the federal regulations Plaintiff cites provide her with a private cause of action, as they appear to be regulations enforceable by the federal government. See 41 C.F.R. 102-74.450. It appears Plaintiff is homeless, which may explain her inability to respond to the Court's order to show cause. See ECF No. 1 at 1. Nonetheless, because the Court has no basis to find subject matter jurisdiction over this case on the face of the complaint, it must dismiss this action. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/29/2023.(Piccolo, Marissa)
|
| Set deadline: Show Cause Response due by 11-17-2023 per Dkt. 8. (Shafer, J.) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that, if the Court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In order for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, either (1) the plaintiff must set forth a colorable claim arising under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute, thus invoking this Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331; or (2) there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 under 28 U.S.C. 1332. See DaSilva v. Kinsho Int'l Corp., 229 F.3d 358, 363 (2d Cir. 2000) (identifying the two categories of subject matter jurisdiction). Because it appears all parties are citizens of the state of Connecticut, Plaintiff may not rely on diversity jurisdiction to bring her claims in federal court. Instead, she must rely on federal question jurisdiction. To that end, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated several federal regulations after medical staff ordered that she leave a hospital waiting room and contacted the police. But the federal regulations Plaintiff cites pertain to actions on federal property, see, e.g., 41 C.F.R. section 102-74.445, and there is no allegation that the property the incidents occurred on is federal property; nor is it clear that any of the federal regulations Plaintiff cites provide her with a private cause of action, as they appear to be regulations enforceable by the federal government. See 41 C.F.R. section 102-74.450. Therefore, it is not clear to the Court that Plaintiff has alleged a claim that provides the Court with federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, no later than November 17, 2023 Plaintiff shall respond to this order explaining why she believes this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case. Plaintiff may choose to contact the Federal Pro Se Program at nhlegal.org/prose for assistance in responding to this order. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/2/2023.(Piccolo, Marissa)
|
|
Filing 7
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/30/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/30/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 5
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/29/2023. Discovery due by 4/30/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 6/4/2024. Signed by Clerk on 10/30/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge Robert M. Spector added. (Shafer, J.) |
| Filing 4 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 10/30/2023.(Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Queen-Princess Aryaknie Roundtree-McCrorey. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Queen-Princess Aryaknie Roundtree-McCrorey. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against ECHN, Vernon Police Department, filed by Queen-Princess Aryaknie Roundtree-McCrorey.(Gaskins, A) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2023: #1 Exhibit Medical documents, #2 Exhibit bracelets) (Gaskins, Andrea). |
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.
