McLemore v. The Medical Center

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers on screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (SG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
JAMES JESSE McLEMORE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV-46-GNS

THE MEDICAL CENTER et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, James Jesse McLemore, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint. This
matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed.
I.
Plaintiff, who lives in Russellville, Kentucky, has filed a complaint and amended
complaint. He sues The Medical Center in Bowling Green, Kentucky; Dr. J. Zhu at the Graves
Gilbert Clinic in Bowling Green, Kentucky; and Dr. Chad Collins of The Medical Center. He
makes various allegations concerning medical negligence in failing to conduct a specific spinal
fluid test.
II.
“Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the plaintiff must establish
subject matter jurisdiction.” Walburn v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 431 F.3d 966, 970 (6th Cir.
2005). Federal courts hear only cases allowed under the Constitution or cases which Congress
has entrusted to them by statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be premised on the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), as
there is not complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. Under the diversity-of-

citizenship statute, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where
the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of
different states . . . . ” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “[D]iversity jurisdiction does not exist unless
each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co.
v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). Plaintiff does not claim that the action exceeds $75,000,
and Plaintiff’s address and Defendants’ addresses are in Kentucky. Consequently, Plaintiff
cannot bring any state-law claims by way of the federal diversity statute.
While jurisdiction in this Court also may be premised on a federal question, see 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”), nothing in the complaint suggests
that Plaintiff is attempting to invoke federal-question jurisdiction. Without subject-matter
jurisdiction, this Court must dismiss the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.”).
III.
Consequently, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the instant action for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
Date:

September 9, 2015

Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4416.009

2