Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02719/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02719-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK* M. PAGAH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2719-IEG (JMA)

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING THE ACTION

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION; 

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS [DOC. NO. 2];

AND

(3) DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL [DOC NO. 3]

v.

DR. RUSSELL P. EDWARDS,

Defendant.

Mark M. Pagah (“Plaintiff”) has filed a civil action alleging medical malpractice against

Dr. Russell P. Edwards (“Defendant”). [Doc. No. 1, Compl.] Plaintiff has not paid the $350 civil

filing fee required to commence this action; rather, he has filed a motion to proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Doc. No. 2, Mot. for Leave to Proceed IFP (“IFP

Mot.”)]. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to appoint counsel. [Doc. No. 3, Mot. to Appoint

Counsel.]

Before deciding Plaintiff’s motions, the Court must first determine whether it has subject

matter jurisdiction over this action. “The Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to resolve

jurisdictional issues before reaching the merits of a case.” Rivera v. R.R. Retirement Bd., 262

F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94

(1998) (rejecting doctrine of “hypothetical jurisdiction”)). “Without jurisdiction the court cannot

- 1 - 12cv2719

Case 3:12-cv-02719-IEG-JMA Document 4 Filed 11/28/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist,

the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” 

Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Court “cannot proceed

at all,” id., if it lacks jurisdiction, the Court must first determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction

before ruling on Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed IPF and to appoint counsel. 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and as such “possess only that power

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). Lack of

subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time by any party or sua sponte by the court. Csibi

v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136 n.3 (9th Cir. 1982). 

The court must presume that a case lies outside of its limited jurisdiction, and the burden of

establishing jurisdiction is on the party asserting it. Id. Federal courts may exercise jurisdiction if

the complaint presents a federal question or if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are met. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

“[D]istrict courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “federal question”

must be disclosed on the face of the complaint. Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities

Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998). Under the longstanding well-pleaded

complaint rule, this means that jurisdiction is proper “only when the plaintiff’s statement of his

own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S.

49, 60 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff attempts to assert a medical malpractice

action against Defendant. [Doc. No. 1, Compl.] However, the face of Plaintiff’s complaint does

not show that his action is based upon federal law. Therefore, the Court does not have subject

matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question.

“The federal court's basic diversity jurisdiction extends to ‘all civil actions where the

matter in controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is between ... [c]itizens of different States.” 

Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a)(1)). Plaintiff does not specifically allege the citizenship of either himself or Defendant. 

- 2 - 12cv2719

Case 3:12-cv-02719-IEG-JMA Document 4 Filed 11/28/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

He only states in his pleadings that his address is 6650 Amherst Street, Unit 8B, San Diego,

California. [Doc. No. 1, Compl. at 1.] He also states that Defendant’s address is 3969 4th

Avenue, Suite 301, San Diego, California. [Id. at 28, 36, 39.] Because Plaintiff has not alleged

facts sufficient to satisfy his burden to support a finding that the citizenship of the parties is

diverse, the Court finds that it lacks diversity jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Because Plaintiff has not asserted federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, the

Court DISMISSES the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because

the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it DISMISSES as moot Plaintiff’s motions for leave to

proceed IFP and to appoint counsel. [Doc. Nos. 2, 3.] 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 28, 2012 _____________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv2719

Case 3:12-cv-02719-IEG-JMA Document 4 Filed 11/28/12 Page 3 of 3