Ibrahim v. Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, P.A. et al
ORDER: The Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 is Granted and the Clerk is Directed to file the plaintiff's complaint in forma pauperis. The Court concludes that the plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the plaintiff's ability to pursue her claims in state court. The Motion for Extension of Time 3 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/16/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
MURFREESBORO MEDICAL CLINIC, P.A.,
DR. ANDREW H. FORD,
SLEEP MEDICINE OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE, and )
DR. KELLY A. CARDEN,
Case No. 3:12-cv-1019
Before the Court is plaintiff Shemeka Ibrahim’s Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees and Costs (ECF No. 2). As it appears from the plaintiff’s submission that she lacks
sufficient financial resources from which to pay in advance the full fee required for the filing of a
complaint, the application is GRANTED and the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the plaintiff’s complaint in
forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Having granted the plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper, the Court must conduct an initial
review of the complaint to determine whether it, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114
F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)). In
reviewing the complaint, the Court must construe the pro se plaintiff’s complaint liberally, Boag v.
McDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), and accept the plaintiff's allegations as true unless they are clearly
irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
In this case, the plaintiff has failed to assert any claim over which this Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction. The complaint does not allege a violation of federal law that would invoke the Court’s federalquestion jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The plaintiff does not assert the existence of federalquestion jurisdiction, and the Court cannot discern any possible federal claim stemming from the plaintiff’s
allegations. To the contrary, the plaintiff appears to assert purely state-law claims for medical malpractice
and negligence. Medical malpractice, no matter how egregious, is not a federal claim.
Nor do the allegations in the complaint indicate that the Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction
over the state-law claims. A federal district court has jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state-law
claims if the suit is between “citizens of different states” and the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum
or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The general rule is that
diversity is determined at the time of the filing of a lawsuit. Curry v. U.S. Bulk Transp., Inc., 462 F.3d 536,
540 (6th Cir. 2006). The complaint in this case does not allege an amount in controversy. Even if the
Court were to assume that the requisite amount is at stake, the plaintiff’s allegations show that she and all
of the defendants are citizens and residents of Tennessee. Because the plaintiff has not pleaded the
requisite amount in controversy and because her allegations reveal that there is no diversity of
citizenship, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
The complaint is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the plaintiff’s ability to pursue her claims in state court.
The Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT.
It is so ORDERED.
Kevin H. Sharp
United States District Judge
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?