BERNARD v. CIGNA LIFE AND ACCIDENT CLAIM SERVICES et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. For the reasons stated in the Court's June 21, 2017 Order (Doc. 6 ) and herein, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 7/13/2017. (kg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIGNA LIFE AND ACCIDENT CLAIM
SERVICES, et al.,
Civil Action No. 17-707
Judge Cathy Bissoon
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
On June 21, 2017, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause as to why
this case should not be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 6). On July 12,
2017, Plaintiff filed a response to the Show Cause Order, captioned “Motion to Show Cause
Why Plaintiff Case Should Not Be Dismissed.” (Doc. 7). For the reasons discussed herein,
Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s Show Cause Order fails to demonstrate the existence of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff first contends that the Court should “consider the supplemental jurisdiction
offered under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and to proceed under diversity of citizenship.” (Doc. 7 at ¶ 1).
However, the Complaint itself establishes that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was “incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at
Camp Hill, and is now housed at Greene[,] which is located in the Western District of
Pennsylvania” (Doc. 5 at ¶ 1); that the address of “Ms. Toni M,” the Cigna agent involved in this
matter, is in “Pittsburgh, PA” (Doc. 5 at ¶ 2); that Defendant Patricia Patterson resides in the
“City of Pittsburgh” (Doc. 5 at ¶ 3); and that Defendant Raymond Bernard’s “last known
address” is in “Pittsburgh, PA.” (Doc. 5 at ¶ 4). Thus, based on Plaintiff’s own allegations, the
Court finds that complete diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants does
not exist, and thus the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332.
Plaintiff further asks that the Court “consider the supplemental jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1441.” (Doc. 7 at ¶ 2). However, this section governs the removal of state actions to
federal court by a defendant, and thus is inapplicable here.
Finally, Plaintiff “requests the Court to reconsidered (sic) the subject matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), with relationship with 42 U.S.C. § 1983; which may be used as
jurisdictional basis in 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when only property rights are involved.” (Doc. 7 at ¶
3). However, for the reasons stated in the Court’s June 21, 2017 Order, this Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or §1343(a)(3) because none of the
Defendants—private corporate entity, Cigna Life and Accident Claim Services, and private
citizens, Patricia Patterson and Raymond Bernard—are state actors subject to suit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Court’s June 21, 2017 Order and herein, this
case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 13, 2017
United States District Judge
cc (via First-Class U.S. mail):
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
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?