Amison v. Edward Hospital
| Jeremi Amison |
| Edward Hospital |
| 1:2020cv00924 |
| February 6, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John J Tharp |
| P.I.: Assault Libel & Slander |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 25, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 JUDGMENT ORDER. Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 2/25/2020. Mailed notice. (sxb, ) |
Filing 11
ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis #10 is granted, but his amended complaint #9 is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court must sua sponte review Plaintiff's complaint to ensure that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. See Evergreen Square of Cudahy v. Wisconsin Hous. and Econ. Dev. Auth., 776 F.3d 463, 465 (7th Cir. 2015) ("[F]ederal courts are obligated to inquire into the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte."). A federal court's jurisdiction is generally limited to suits that involve causes of action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. 1331, or are between citizens of different states, see 28 U.S.C. 1332. The amended complaint does not appear to give rise to any federal cause of action. Plaintiff alleges sexual harassment and assault by nurses at the hospital and that he was wrongfully detained in the hospital after requesting a free psychological evaluation. Plaintiff admits that he voluntarily visited the hospital, and he provides no other factual basis to explain how these claims can properly invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has indicated that the Court should consider the complaint to be a Bivens action, but his complaint fails to include any information explaining how the sole defendant, a hospital, qualifies as a Bivens defendant. Similarly, Plaintiff has not made any allegations that there is complete diversity of citizenship between him and the defendant or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 1332. Accordingly, this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of Plaintiff's claims in a court that may exercise jurisdiction over them. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 2/25/2020. Mailed notice. (sxb, )
|
| ***Civil Case Terminated. (air, ) |
| Filing 10 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Jeremi Amison for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Document does not display case number) (sxb, ) |
| Filing 9 AMENDED complaint by Jeremi Amison against Edward Hospital (Document does not display case number) (sxb, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Plaintiff is directed to file, by February 19, 2020, an amended complaint that adequately sets forth a basis to invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, Plaintiff must either adequately plead: (1) citizenship for both himself and the defendant sufficient to invoke diversity jurisdiction; or (2) some other basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to file a timely amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action. In addition, the plaintiff's application for a waiver of court fees #4 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is further directed to refile an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the proper form required for federal court, located at [https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/OnlineForms.aspx?77hrgQmtYk32vwxoL6IgPZKyod+EqeEG3a62pDlkmlA=]. Mailed notice (cn). |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (bg, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Jeremi Amison for waiver of court fees (bg, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Jeremi Amison (bg, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (bg, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 1 copy by Jeremi Amison (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Envelope not postmarked) (bg, ) |
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 Illinois Northern 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
| Search for this case: Amison v. Edward Hospital | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jeremi Amison | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Edward Hospital | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
