Winfield et al v. University of Chicago Medical Center et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 3/5/2013:We must dismiss this case with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We simply lack the authority to hear Winfield's case, which perhaps belongs instead in state court. It is so ordered. We strike Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ( 4 ) and motion for appointment of counsel ( 5 ) as moot. [For further details see written opinion.] ; Case Terminated Mailed notice (ao,)

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Marvin Aspen

CASE NUMBER

13 C 1566

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

3/5/2013

Winfield, et al vs. University of Chicago Medical Center, et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

We must dismiss this case with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We simply lack the
authority to hear Winfield’s case, which perhaps belongs instead in state court. It is so ordered. We strike
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (4) and motion for appointment of counsel (5) as moot.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
(Reserved for use by the Court)

ORDER
On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Carolyn Winfield filed this lawsuit on behalf of her deceased
daughter, Kimberly, and her two sons. Winfield claims that Defendants—University of Chicago Medical
Center and Dr. Matthew J. Sorrintino—failed to treat Kimberly in a reasonably competent manner, resulting
in her death on January 13, 2011. Before us are Winfield’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
motion for appointment of counsel. i
Before granting leave to file in forma pauperis, we must first determine whether Winfield is indigent.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). We must also conduct an initial review of her complaint and dismiss the action if we
find that (1) it is frivolous or malicious; (2) it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) it
seeks damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). As to
the second factor, failure to state a claim, we apply the test for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), which requires
that a complaint contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007); see also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,
608 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, Winfield’s in forma pauperis application indicates that her income falls under the
poverty guideline for a single-person household. (IFP Aff. ¶¶ 2–4.) (See Health and Human Services 2013
Poverty Guidelines, setting the guideline at $11,490.)
Turning then to our initial review of Winfield’s complaint, we find that it must be dismissed because
we lack jurisdiction. Winfield’s complaint generally alleges malpractice, negligence, and perhaps wrongful
death or alienation of affections—but it does not raise any federal question. That is, all of these claims stem
from Illinois state law, not any federal authority. We therefore cannot have jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
§ 1331, which limits our authority such that we can hear cases only if the subject matter arises “under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
We also lack diversity jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction allows us, very
13C1566 Winfield, et al vs. University of Chicago Medical Center, et al

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
generally speaking, to hear all kinds of cases with state or federal claims, as long as they involve: (1) citizens
of different states; and (2) an amount in dispute exceeding $75,000. Based on our review of the complaint,
all of the parties here appear to be citizens of Illinois. For example, Winfield lives in Chicago. She alleges
that the medical center is “a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Illinois” and treated her
daughter in Chicago. (Compl. ¶ 1.) In short, Winfield does not allege that the defendants are citizens of
other states. She also has not plead the value of her claims in the complaint, so we cannot determine the
amount in controversy. We thus do not have diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we must dismiss this case with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We
simply lack the authority to hear Winfield’s case, which perhaps belongs instead in state court. It is so
ordered.

13C1566 Winfield, et al vs. University of Chicago Medical Center, et al

Page 2 of 2