Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00101/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00101-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLOTEAL SWOOPES,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-0101 PJH

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff Cloteal Swoopes filed this action on January 8, 2007, and also filed an

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). On February 2, 2007, the court

dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim, and

also for failure to allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied the

IFP request. 

The dismissal was with leave to amend. The amended complaint was due on March

9, 2007. As of March 14, 2007, plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint. She did

submit a letter dated February 9, 2007, which was filed on February 23, 2007, but the letter

did nothing to clarify the basis for federal jurisdiction. 

The complaint, combined with the subsequent letter, appears to state a claim for

medical malpractice on behalf of plaintiff’s son. The only possible basis for federal

jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim asserted against a non-federal defendant is

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, because the parties all appear to

Case 4:07-cv-00101-PJH Document 6 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

be residents of the State of California, complete diversity is lacking, and the court cannot

exercise jurisdiction. 

In addition, as the court noted in the February 2, 2007, plaintiff has not established

that her son meets the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) so that

she can proceed in a legal action as guardian ad litem on his behalf.

The court advised plaintiff in the February 2, 2007, order that failure to file an

amended complaint by March 9, 2007, would result in dismissal of the action. Accordingly,

plaintiff having failed to amend the complaint as directed, the action is hereby DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00101-PJH Document 6 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 2