Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01234/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01234-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James Harris, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-01234-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 On May 20, 2016, the Court issued the following Order: 

 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As a result, they 

can hear only those cases that the Constitution and Congress have 

authorized them to adjudicate: namely, cases involving diversity of 

citizenship, a federal question, or cases to which the United States is a 

party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 

(1994). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving a 

jurisdictional basis exists. Id. In this case, because Plaintiff filed his suit in 

federal district court, he must show that the federal court is authorized to 

hear the case. 

 In the complaint, Plaintiff states, “Jurisdiction is within the statutory 

guide lines of the Federal District Court....” Doc. 1 at 2. Plaintiff’s sole 

cause of action is for negligence. Plaintiff claims to be a citizen of Arizona. 

It appears Defendants are also citizens of Arizona. Accordingly, it does not 

seem that either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction exist 

in this case. 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that within 21 days, Plaintiff shall file a 

supplement to his complaint alleging a basis for federal subject matter 

jurisdiction or this case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Doc. 5. 

 In “response” to this Order, on June 1, 2016, Plaintiff moved to dismiss this case 

(with prejudice). Doc. 6. The Court will grant the motion; however, because the Court 

Case 2:16-cv-01234-JAT Document 7 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

remains uncertain of its jurisdiction over this action, the dismissal will be without 

prejudice. 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is granted. This case is 

dismissed, without prejudice. 

 Dated this 3rd day of June, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01234-JAT Document 7 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 2