Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06338/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06338-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WEN-MEI YOU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JAMES W. OSTROFF, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-6338 EMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs Wen-Mei You and Hongzhi Sun have filed a complaint against Defendants James

W. Ostroff and the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center, asserting claims for

medical malpractice and fraud. Plaintiffs have also filed with the Court an application to proceed in

forma pauperis and a request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiffs have consented to proceed

before a magistrate judge.

I. DISCUSSION

A. In Forma Pauperis Application

When presented with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must first

determine if the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Section 1915(a) does not require an

applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution. See McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d

853, 854 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331,

339(1948)).

Case 3:07-cv-06338-EMC Document 4 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 4
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

The Court has reviewed the financial affidavit of Ms. You. Although a close call, the court

finds that Ms. You and her spouse, Mr. Sun, meet the economic eligibility requirement of § 1915(a),

and accordingly the Court grants the application to proceed in forma pauperis.

B. Complaint

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a court to dismiss any case in which a litigant seeks

leave to proceed in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action is (1) frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In the instant

case, it may be that the University has sovereign immunity from suit. However, a larger problem

with Plaintiffs’ complaint is that, based on the allegations contained therein, it appears that the Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction “of all civil actions

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but, in the

instant case, Plaintiffs have not alleged any federal claims, only state law claims for medical

malpractice and fraud. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a federal court also has subject matter jurisdiction

when each of the plaintiffs is a citizen of a different state from each of the defendants (i.e., when

there is “complete diversity”) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In the case at bar,

however, the parties lack any diversity at all: Plaintiffs appear to be citizens of California as do both

Defendants.

The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiffs’ complaint on the basis of lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. The Court, however, shall give Plaintiffs thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint

if, consistent with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Plaintiffs allege facts that establish federal

jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint within thirty days, then the Clerk of the

Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-06338-EMC Document 4 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 4
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

C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint, it denies their request for appointment

of counsel. The denial is without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06338-EMC Document 4 Filed 01/16/08 Page 3 of 4
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WEN-MEI YOU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JAMES W. OSTROFF, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-6338 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Hongzhi Sun

3700 Cabrillo Street, 104

San Francisco, CA 94121

Wenmei You

3700 Cabrillo Street, 104

San Francisco, CA 94121

Dated: January 16, 2008 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-06338-EMC Document 4 Filed 01/16/08 Page 4 of 4