Harris v. St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. This case is dismissed, without prejudice. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/3/16. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 James Harris, No. CV-16-01234-PHX-JAT Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On May 20, 2016, the Court issued the following Order: 16 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As a result, they can hear only those cases that the Constitution and Congress have authorized them to adjudicate: namely, cases involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or cases to which the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving a jurisdictional basis exists. Id. In this case, because Plaintiff filed his suit in federal district court, he must show that the federal court is authorized to hear the case. In the complaint, Plaintiff states, “Jurisdiction is within the statutory guide lines of the Federal District Court….” Doc. 1 at 2. Plaintiff’s sole cause of action is for negligence. Plaintiff claims to be a citizen of Arizona. It appears Defendants are also citizens of Arizona. Accordingly, it does not seem that either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction exist in this case. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that within 21 days, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to his complaint alleging a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Doc. 5. In “response” to this Order, on June 1, 2016, Plaintiff moved to dismiss this case (with prejudice). Doc. 6. The Court will grant the motion; however, because the Court 1 remains uncertain of its jurisdiction over this action, the dismissal will be without 2 prejudice. 3 Therefore, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is granted. This case is 5 6 dismissed, without prejudice. Dated this 3rd day of June, 2016. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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.

Why Is My Information Online?