Carlos-El v. Garuba et al
| Walter S. Carlos-El |
| Lawal Garuba and Sauk Trail Dental Care |
| 1:2023cv03642 |
| June 8, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Franklin U Valderrama |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 ENTERED JUDGMENT on 6/28/2023. Emailed notice (axc). |
Filing 10
ORDER: The Court has reviewed the Amended Complaint, R. 9. Unfortunately, the Amended Complaint is not responsive to the Court's jurisdictional inquiry. Again, Plaintiff alleges there is federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1331, over his Personal Injury Medical Malpractice claim. But, again, Plaintiff's claim is a state law claim and is not a federal question. Further, Plaintiff does not purport to rely upon diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332, in his Complaint, and in any event is seeking an amount less than $75,000 such that diversity jurisdiction would not apply even if the parties were citizens of different states. See Hedrick-Walker Associates, Inc. v. Viktron Techs., Inc., 878 F. Supp. 119, 121 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (dismissing action based on the inadequacy of the amount in controversy claimed where case was in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, which means that they can only hear certain kinds of cases. Typically, cases in federal court concern issues of federal law (federal question jurisdiction) or are among citizens of different states for amounts over $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction). Neither basis is applicable in this case accepting the well-pled allegations in the Amended Complaint as true. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." See also Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2008) ("Subject-matter jurisdiction is so central to the district court's power to issue any orders whatsoever that it may be inquired into at any time, with or without a motion, by any party or by the court itself.") Accordingly, the Court concludes that although Plaintiff's Amended Complaint #9 adequately pleads a plausible claim for medical malpractice under state law, it does not state a plausible claim over which this Court has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Under 735 ILCS 5/13-217, Plaintiff may refile this lawsuit in Illinois state court within one year. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 6/28/2023. Emailed notice (axc).
|
| Filing 9 AMENDED complaint by Walter S. Carlos-El against Lawal Garuba, Sauk Trail Dental Care. (aee, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Lawal Garuba, Sauk Trail Dental Care (exr, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed the Complaint, R. 1, and issues the following jurisdictional inquiry. Plaintiff alleges there is federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1331, over his Personal Injury Medical Malpractice claim. But Plaintiff's claim for medical malpractice is a state law claim and not a federal question. Further, Plaintiff does not purport to rely upon diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332, in his Complaint, and is seeking an amount less than $75,000 in any event. Accordingly, on or before 07/13/2023, Plaintiff shall either amend the Complaint with the necessary allegations (if he can do so in good faith), or file a memorandum by that date explaining why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, Plaintiff has paid the filing fee, and the next step is service of process. The Clerk shall issue summonses for each Defendant to Plaintiff. Plaintiff must properly serve each Defendant with a summons and complaint. Plaintiff should look to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 for the rule on service of process. Plaintiff has 90 days to serve each Defendant. The Court directs Plaintiff's attention to the U.S. District Court Hibbler Memorial Pro Se Assistance Program, information about which can be found at: https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Pages.aspx?/2+UWDbtVzCDq3Lu8BusuQ== or 312-435-5691. Plaintiff shall file a status report on the progress of service (or proof of service if accomplished) by 07/27/2023. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On or before 08/22/2023 the parties shall file a joint initial status report. A template for the Joint Initial Status Report, setting forth the information required, may be found at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Valderrama's name and then again on the link entitled 'Joint Initial Status Report. Plaintiff must serve this Minute Entry on all other parties. If the defendant(s) has not been served with process by that date, plaintiff's counsel is instructed to file an individual status report indicating the status of service of process by the same deadline. The parties are further ordered to review all of Judge Valderrama's standing orders and the information available on his webpage. Any nongovernmental corporate party that qualifies under the Rules is reminded of the requirement to file a disclosure statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1/N.D. Ill. Local Rule 3.2. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #4 is denied without prejudice to renewal later in this case. "There is no right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil litigation," Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014), but the Court has discretion to request that an attorney represent an indigent litigant on a volunteer basis under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). The Court declines to do so at this time because Plaintiff's motion does not show what effort he made to retain counsel on his own; he simply says that he has no representation. That is inadequate to show a diligent effort to obtain counsel. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc); Russell v. Bukowski, 608 F.App'x 426, 428 (7th Cir. 2015) ("[B]efore a district court is required to consider recruiting counsel to assist a litigant in a civil case, the litigant must make a reasonable attempt to secure counsel for himself."). The Court also is unable to determine at this early stage of the litigation whether Plaintiff is capable of proceeding effectively without counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #4 is denied without prejudice to renewal later in this case. Emailed notice (axc). |
| Filing 4 MOTION by Plaintiff Walter S. Carlos-El for attorney representation. (aee, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Walter S. Carlos-El. (aee, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (aee, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Walter S. Carlos-El. (aee, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Lawal Garuba. (aee, ) |
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
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.
