NOT PRECEDE NTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 1

- 1 0 6 2

__________

J E F F R E Y G I B S O N

,

Appellant

v.

O F F I C E O F A T T O R

N E Y G E N E R

A L ; U P M C P I N N A C L E H E A L T H

____________________________________

On Appeal fr om the United Stat es Distr ict Court

for t h e M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1

- 20

- cv

- 01362 )

District Judge: Ho norable J e n n i f e r P

. W i l s o n

__________________

____________

______

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

A p r i l 8

, 2 0 2 1

Be fore: G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. , K R A U S E

, a n d B I B A S

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : June 21, 2021 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition i s not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuan t to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.2

A p p e l l a n t J e f

f r e y G i b s o n f

i l e d a f e d e r a l c o m

p l a i n t a g a i n s t a h e a l t h c a r e c e n t e r a n d

t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f P e n n s y l v a n i a i n w h i c h h e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e h e a l t h c a r e c e n t e r g a v e

a n u n a u t h o r i z e d a n d d e a d l y d o s a g e o f m o r p h i n e t o h i s m o t

h e r

. H e c l a i m e d t h a t t h e

h e a l t h c a r e c e n t e r t h e n r e f u s e d t o p r o v i d e h i m with a c e r t i f i c a t e o f d e a t h ( a l t h o u g h i t d i d

s o d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e a c t i o n )

. A s a r e m e d y

, G i b s o n s o u g h t m o n e y d a m a g e s a n d

a s k e d t h a t t h e C o u r t o r d e r t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l t o i n i t i a t e a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n

i n t o t h e o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e h e a l t h c a r e c e n t e r

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r a s k i n g G i b s o n t o s h o w c a u s e a s t o w h y t h e c a s e

s h o u l d n o t b e d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k o f subject m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n

. A f t e r G i b s o n r e s p o n d e d

,

s t a t i n g o n l y t h a t t h e a c t i o n “ c o m e s u n d e r t h e f e d e r a l l a w s a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l B i l l o f R i g h t s

, ” t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e c a s e w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e

,

r e a s o n i n g t h a t n e i t h e r f

e d e r a l q u e s t i o n n o r d i v e r s i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n e x i s t e d

. T h i s t i m e l y p r o

s e a p p e a l f o l l o w e d

.

We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary

revi ew over th e District Court’s dismissal for lac k of subject ma tter jur isdiction. FOCUS

v. Allegheny C n ty . C t

. of Common Pleas , 75 F.3d 834, 839

- 40 (3d Cir. 1996).

To have subject ma tter jurisdiction, a District Court must be able to exercise either

federal questi on juri sdiction or diversity jurisdi ction. 1 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

, 1332. As

1 T he District Court p roperly consi dered its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)

, after giving Gibson an oppor tunity to be heard on the issue

, s e e

Neiderhiser v. Boroug h of Berwick , 840 F.2d 213, 216 n.6 (3d Cir. 1988)

.3

the plaintiff in this case, Gibson was required to plead the grounds for jurisdiction. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC , 800 F.3d 99, 106 (3d

Cir. 2015). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), fe deral di strict courts have subject matter

j urisdiction wh en there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in

controversy exce eds $75,000

. To establish diversity of citizenship, “d iv ersity must be

complete; that is , no plaintiff can be a cit izen of the same state as any of the defen dants.”

Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. Hansen , 48 F.3d 693, 696 (3d Cir. 1995). Here, the District

Court concluded that all parties are citizens of Pennsylvania . ECF No. 7 at 1. Gibson has

not c hallenged that conclusi on in his brief, and we see no basis to make such a challenge.

N o r h a s G i b s o n s h o w n s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n b a s e d o n a f e d e r a l q u e s t i o n

p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 3 1

. For federal question juri sdiction to exist, “the party

assert ing jurisdictio n must s atisfy the ‘well

- pleaded complaint rule,’ which mandates that

the grounds for jurisdiction be cle ar on the face of the pleading that initiates the case.”

Goldman v. Citigroup Glob. M k t s

. Inc. , 834 F.3d 242, 249 (3d Cir. 2016). G i b s o n d i d

n o t r e f e r t o a n y f

e d e r a l l a w i n h i s c o m

p l a i n t

. W h i l e Gibson c l a i m e d i n h i s s u p p l e m e n t

a n d o n a p p e a l t h a t “ f

e d e r a l l a w s o n k i l l i n g [ w e r e ] n o t u p h e l d ” a n d t h a t t h e B i l l o f R i g h t s

w a s v i o l a t e d

, t h e s e c o n c l u s o r y a s s e r t i o n s a r e i n s u f

f i c i e n t t o i n v o k e f

e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n

.

Se e, e.g.

, Fabrica de Muebles J.J. Alvarez, Incorporado v. Inversiones Mendoza, Inc. , 682

F.3d 26, 33

- 34 (1st Cir. 2012). 2

2 It appears that Gibson s ought to bring claims of wrongful death or medical malpractice,

which arise under state law. Se e, e.g.

, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8301 (wrongful death);4

A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l a f

f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

.

Toogo od v. Owen J. Rogal, D. D.S., P.C. , 824 A.2d 1140, 1145 (Pa. 2003) (medical

malpractice). And to the extent that Gibson sought to impose criminal liability on the

defendants, he lacked standing to d o so. S ee Linda R.S. v. Richard D. , 410 U.S. 614, 619

(19 73).