Court Opinion

ID: 9387037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 16:01:51.677505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:10.804309
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAUN AKINDOALEXANDER RUSHING,                        )
                                                      )
       Plaintiff,                                     )
                                                      )
       v.                                             )    Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00298 (UNA)
                                                      )
GEORGE WASHINGTON                                     )
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL,                                  )
                                                      )
       Defendant.                                     )

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons explained below, the court will grant

plaintiff’s IFP application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

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

       Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues George Washington University

Hospital, also located in the District. He alleges that, in January 2023, defendant and its physicians

refused him medical attention, discriminated against him, and threatened to kill him. He demands

approximately 12 billion dollars in damages. It is unclear whether his claim sounds in tort (e.g.,

medical malpractice) or something else altogether.

       The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth

generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available

only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts

that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such

facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
       First, plaintiff’s claims fail to raise any federal question. Although he passingly refers to

“discrimination,” he does not specify the legal authority under which his rights were purportedly

violated nor does he provide any context to make out a colorable claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 682 (2009) (“bare assertions” of a “discrimination claim” are “not entitled to be assumed

true”). Indeed, the court has no information as to how plaintiff was discriminated against or what

damages resulted therefrom.

        Second, both plaintiff and defendant are located in the District of Columbia, so there can

be no diversity jurisdiction. See Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing

Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978) (“For jurisdiction to exist

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that

the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”)). Therefore, this court

cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

        For all of these reasons, the complaint, ECF No. 1, and the case, are dismissed without

prejudice. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

       SO ORDERED.

Date: April 14, 2023

                                              Tanya S. Chutkan
                                              TANYA S. CHUTKAN
                                              United States District Judge