Sabir v. Hunter's Ambulance Services

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). This order of dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff's right to seek relief in the state courts of Connecticut. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/6/2017. (Levenson, C.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

HASSAN SABIR,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:16-cv-01508 (JAM)

HUNTER’S AMBULANCE SERVICES,
Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Hassan Sabir has filed this action for damages against defendant Hunter’s
Ambulance Services. Because I conclude that there is no federal jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
claim, I will dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) without prejudice to
plaintiff’s right to seek relief in a Connecticut state court.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint on a standardized civil complaint form entitled
“Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging Negligence (28 U.S.C. § 1332; Diversity of Citizenship).”
Doc. #1. His complaint lists plaintiff’s street address in Middletown, Connecticut. The complaint
also identifies defendant Hunter’s Ambulance Services with a street address in Middletown,
Connecticut. Plaintiff alleges that the following occurred on September 6, 2014: “A ambulance
was called to the police dept to come & take me to the Hospital. [W]hen they came without any
exam[i]nation of [my] condition they just left me there to suffer.” Doc. #1 at 4. According to
plaintiff, “[t]his company Hunter’s Ambulance is in the business to help people who are in need
of medical care,” but “they [f]ailed to do so.” Ibid. Plaintiff seeks $240,000 in damages. Ibid.

1

DISCUSSION
Federal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provide in part that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h). Here, plaintiff has
filed a form complaint alleging that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over state law claims if the parties are citizens
of different states and if the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A
corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its
principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
It is evident from the complaint that there is no diversity jurisdiction, because both
plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state of Connecticut.1 Plaintiff lists his home
address to be in Connecticut, and he lists defendant’s address also to be in Connecticut.
Moreover, according to the Court’s search of the on-line database of the Connecticut Secretary
of State, defendant is incorporated in Connecticut.
Accordingly, there is no diversity jurisdiction over this case. Nor is there any other
apparent basis for federal jurisdiction. Although plaintiff alleges in passing that there was a
“Civil Rights Violation,” Doc. #1 at 4, there is no indication that defendant—a private
ambulance company—was a governmental actor as would be necessary to sustain plaintiff’s
claim for a federal civil rights violation. See, e.g., Betts v. Shearman, 751 F.3d 78, 84–85 (2d Cir.
2014).

The complaint form advised plaintiff that “federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and that, for a
court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, “no defendant may be a citizen of the same State as any plaintiff.” Doc. #1 at
3. Despite the complaint form’s admonition that plaintiff should “[e]xplain how these jurisdiction requirements have
been met,” ibid., plaintiff has not done so.
1

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). This order of dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to seek relief in the state
courts of Connecticut. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven this 6th day of January, 2017.

/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

3