Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03416/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03416-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randoll Go
Defendant
Daniel Rodriguez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. RANDOLL GO, et al. 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-3416 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND;

DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

Before the Court is plaintiff Daniel Rodriguez’s complaint and application to proceed

in forma pauperis, both filed May 25, 2006. When a party seeks to proceed in forma

pauperis, the district court is required to dismiss the case if the court determines that the

plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the grounds upon which

the court’s jurisdiction depends.” See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(a)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint fails

to comply with this requirement.

Plaintiff’s sole allegation is that defendants committed malpractice when they failed

to correctly diagnose and treat his glaucoma, causing him to suffer irreparable harm. 

”[M]edical malpractice claims do not present a federal question.” Olsen v. Quality

Continuum Hospice, Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1231 (D. N.M. 2004) (citing cases). 
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

Consequently, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim. See id.

No other basis for jurisdiction is present. Plaintiff alleges he resides in California and

that both defendants have California addresses. Consequently, diversity of citizenship is

lacking. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (providing district court has jurisdiction over action

between citizens of different states, where claim exceeds $75,000).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend and

without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing his claim in state court. In light of the dismissal,

plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge