Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01423/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01423-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

JOSEPH SORCE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv1423-LAB (NLS)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

JAY JOSEPH DOUCET,

Defendant.

Joseph Sorce brought this personal injury lawsuit against his physician, Jay Joseph

Doucet, for allegedly botching his surgery. (Docket no. 1.) He alleges Dr. Doucet is

employed by the University of California, San Diego. (Id.) In the space on the civil cover

sheet for this case where Sorce was to "cite the U.S. civil statute under which you are filing,"

he wrote "civil rights personal injury health care," without citing any statute. (Id.) While he

doesn't allege his citizenship, Sorce's filings in this case list a California address. (See, e.g.,

Docket no. 3.) Sorce didn't pay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to

commence a civil action; instead he has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Docket no. 2.) 

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1). However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma

pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. "A district court may

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the

- 1 - 15cv1423

Case 3:15-cv-01423-LAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 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

proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit." Minetti v. Port of Seattle,

152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir.1998) (quotation omitted).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and may only exercise jurisdiction in

certain kinds of cases as authorized by the United States Constitution and Congress. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). "Original federal

subject matter jurisdiction may be premised on two bases: (1) federal question jurisdiction,

and (2) diversity jurisdiction." Brooks v. Legislative Bill Room, 2010 WL 2106475, at *2 (E.D.

Cal. May 25, 2010). "It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited

jurisdiction, . . . and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

jurisdiction." Id. (citation omitted). Even where no party disputes that federal jurisdiction is

proper, the Court has an "independent obligation" to determine whether subject matter

jurisdiction exists. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).

Sorce's allegations against Dr. Doucet do not raise a federal question. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331. Rather, he alleges a personal injury case which would have to be brought under

California state law. Cf. Long Jaw v. Young, 2011 WL 1468370, at *3 (D. Mont. Mar. 15,

2011). Nor does Sorce allege that his citizenship is diverse from the citizenship of Dr.

Doucet. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Indeed, his filings demonstrate that he and Dr. Doucet are

both California residents. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Sorce's claims and this case

is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. While Sorce's case was improperly filed in

federal court, that doesn't necessarily mean his case lacks merit. It merely means that, if

Sorce chooses to pursue his claims against Dr. Doucet, he must do so in state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 8, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv1423

Case 3:15-cv-01423-LAB-NLS Document 4 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 2