Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05758/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05758-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
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

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-5758 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND DENYING REQUEST TO 

DR. RANDALL GO, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendant.

_______________________________/

The court has received plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis, both filed in this court on September 20, 2006. Because there is no legal basis

for plaintiff's complaint, the Court denies plaintiff’s application and dismisses the complaint

sua sponte.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), "[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security

therefor, by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give

security therefor." In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may

dismiss a case sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma

pauperis status has filed a frivolous action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v. Arizona,

885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a frivolous claim is

one that lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). Dismissal on these grounds are often made sua

sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the

inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Id., 490 U.S. at 324, 109 S. Ct.

at 1831. Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the litigant's complaint

Case 4:06-cv-05758-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 3
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

frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must give the litigant

notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend before final

dismissal, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be

cured by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a medical negligence claim against defendant, Dr.

Randall Go. See Complaint, p.1. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that on August 15, 2003, he

saw Dr. Go, at which time plaintiff allegedly informed Dr. Go that plaintiff had a history of

glaucoma. See id. According to plaintiff, despite his statements regarding his eye history,

Dr. Go failed to refer plaintiff to an ophthalmologist. Id. It was not until some time later,

when plaintiff went to a subsequent eye examination, that plaintiff was finally referred to an

ophthalmologist, who informed plaintiff that the vision in plaintiff’s left eye “is lost for ever.” 

Id. Plaintiff appears to seek a minimum recovery of $75,000.00. Id.

Preliminarily, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that the federal

courts have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. The federal courts are only

permitted to hear disputes that arise from a violation of a federal law (i.e., federal question

jurisdiction), or disputes between citizens of different states with over $75,000 in dispute

(i.e., diversity jurisdiction). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. As such, plaintiff must

demonstrate either that the defendant(s) have violated his federal rights, or that he and all

defendants are citizens of different states and there are more than $75,000 in dispute. 

Here, plaintiff apparently seeks to invoke diversity jurisdiction: he specifically

requests recovery in the minimum amount of $75,000. See Complaint, p.1 ($75,000

notation initialed by plaintiff). Yet plaintiff nowhere includes allegations regarding the

parties’ citizenship. Nor does plaintiff allege any violation of federal law or statute that

would be sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, as currently pled, it is

impossible for the court to determine whether the federal courts are empowered to hear the

instant dispute. As such, plaintiff has failed to set forth "a short and plain statement of the

Case 4:06-cv-05758-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief", as required by Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the

court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

because as such, it is frivolous. 

The court will, however, allow plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint.

For that amended complaint to be successful, plaintiff must demonstrate a basis for federal

subject matter jurisdiction, must allege separate causes of action, must state a

constitutional or statutory basis for each cause of action, and must allege facts showing

each defendant’s personal involvement in the wrongful act alleged in each cause of action,

as well as plaintiff’s harm or injury. Any amended complaint must be filed no later than

February 5, 2007.

If plaintiff fails to file the amended complaint by February 5, 2007, or if he files an

amended complaint not in accordance with the above instructions, the case will be

dismissed with prejudice. 

Because the court orders dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, plaintiff’s request

to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05758-PJH Document 5 Filed 01/08/07 Page 3 of 3