FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAR 22, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11969 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 98 -026 31 -C V -C C -1 J O S E P H H O U G H , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s T I N A O 'N E A L , A tla n taP r o b a tio n D e p a r tm e n t, T E R R Y J O N E S , W I L L I A M H A R R I S O N , G R A D Y H O S P I T A L , D O C T O R J O H N D O E , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 22, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: T hi s c as e began on S ept em ber 8, 19 98 , w hen app el l ant , proceedi ng pro se, f i l e d ac om pl a i ntf

orda m a ge s a ga i ns tthr e e i ndi vi dua l s a nd ahos pi t a l . A l though appel l ant ’ s c om pl ai nti nv ok ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s s ubj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 ( d iv e r s ity o f c itiz e n s h ip ) , it c o n ta in e d ac la im u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1983; he nc e , the c om pl a i nti nvoke d the c our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1331 ( f e d e r a l q u e s tio n ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 3 ( c iv il r ig h ts ) , a s w e ll. O n M ar ch 28 , 20 05 , i n an o rderaddres si ng se vera l m ot i on s, the di stri ctcourt di sm i ss ed appel l ant ’ s § 19 83 cl ai m because app el l anthad fai l ed t o p er fe ctse rvi ce of proces s on the on l y def endantagai nstw ho m the cl ai m had b ee n l od ged, appel l ee T i naO ’ N e a l . T he c our ta l s o di s m i s s e d the c l a i m s a ga i ns tappe l l e e s J one s a nd H arri son o n the sa m e groun d, fa i l ure t o p er fe ctse rvi ce of proces s. H ence , w hat rem ai n edi n th e case th ereafter w ere ap p el l an t ’ s § 1 3 3 2 d i v ersi ty cl ai m s – m al prac t i ce cl ai m s a gai nstG ra dy H ospi t al and D r. John D oe. O n N ov em ber 28, 20 05 , G ra dy H ospi t al m ov ed the courtfor s um m ary j ud gm enton behal f of i t se l f a nd D r. D oe (w ho had yett o b e s erved w i th p roce ss ). T he courtgrant ed the m ot i on i n a com prehensi ve order (w hi ch address ed se vera l pend i ng m ot i on s) on M ar ch 2, 20 06 on the grou nd thati tl ac ked subj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on, s pe c i f

i c a l l y di ve r s i ty j ur i s di c t i on unde r§ 1332. T he c our tf oundOur de cision – that the district court lacked subjec t matter jurisdiction – renders moot 1 the remaining issues a

ppellant raises in his brief. 3 d iv e r s ity ju r is d ic tio n la c k in g b e c a u s e ( 1 ) ap p e lla n t c o n c e d e d th a t h e w a s aG e o r g ia ci t i ze n, and (2) si nce the re m ai ni ng defe nd ant s, G ra dy H ospi t al and D r. D oe, w er e a l s o G e or gi ac i t i z e ns , § 1332 di ve r s i ty r e qui r e m e ntc oul d notbe s a t i s f i e d. T he c our ta c know l e dge d tha t , i n the ory , i tc oul d ha ve m a i nt a i ne d j ur i s di c t i on unde rthe s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on s t a tut e , 28 U . S . C . § 1367, butc onc l ude d tha tbe c a us e the m a lp r a c tic e c la im s d id n o t “s te m f r o m th e s a m e c o m m o n n u c le u s o f o p e r a tiv e f

a c t” as the § 1 98 3 cl ai m agai nstO ’ N ea l , re t ent i on of tho se cl ai m s und er§ 1 36 7 w as in ap p r o p r ia te . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s M a r c h 2 or de ri s the f oc us of thi s appe a l . A ppe l l a nt chal l enges the court ’ s r es ol ut i on of the j uri sdi ct i on al i ss ues a nd com pl ai ns of other rul i ng s the courtm ade – i n the M ar ch 2 and ea rl i erorders . W e a re sa t i sf i ed that th e c o u r t la c k e d d iv e r s ity ju r is d ic tio n a n d th a t it d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e c lin in g to e n te r ta in th e c la im s a g a in s t G r a d y H o s p ita l a n d D r . D o e u n d e rits supp l em ent al § 1 36 7 j uri sdi ct i on . T he court ’ s j ud gm enti s there fore AF F I R ME D. 1