Charles v. Health Span Inc et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/14/13. Further ordering that plaintiffs motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee 2 is DENIED as MOOT. Finally ordering that the Clerk of Court enter judgment. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff)(dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MATTHEW CHARLES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-C-0265

HEALTH SPAN INC. and
HOLLY NYGRO
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit in this court against Health Span Inc., a corporation that
appears to operate the assisted-living facility in which he resides, and Holly Nygro, the
alleged director of Health Span. Plaintiff alleges that certain individuals in the assistedliving facility are constantly yelling at him and making him depressed.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and I must examine newly filed
complaints to ensure that they properly allege federal jurisdiction. See Chase v. Shop n'
Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997); Wisconsin Knife Works
v. National Metal Crafter, 781 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986). In general, federal
jurisdiction can be premised on a federal question or on diversity of citizenship. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Federal question jurisdiction exists over cases "arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity
jurisdiction exists where the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires “complete
diversity,” that is, no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Matchett
v. Wold, 818 F.2d 574, 575 (7th Cir. 1987). A corporate defendant is considered to be a

citizen of the state where it is incorporated and the state where it maintains its principal
place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction, as there is no
federal law that would provide plaintiff with a claim against the defendants under the facts
he alleges. Further, plaintiff has not established diversity jurisdiction, as he has not alleged
that he and the defendants are citizens of different states or that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. As such, I lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
In closing, I note that I am not judging the merits of plaintiff’s claims. Though his
claim cannot proceed in federal court, he is free to seek relief in state court.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee is DENIED as MOOT.
Finally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this14th day of March, 2013.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2