Court Opinion

ID: 9369372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 17:00:53.91295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.527455
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAUN AKINDOALEXANDER RUSHING,                        )
                                                      )
       Plaintiff,                                     )
                                                      )
       v.                                             )    Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00153 (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 defendant and its physicians refused him

medical attention, and refused to prescribe him antibiotics, despite his active infections. He alleges

that he was also unfairly asked to vacate the hospital premises. He demands approximately 3

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. 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, is dismissed without

prejudice. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

       SO ORDERED.

       Date: February 8, 2023                       ___________/s/____________
                                                      RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
                                                      United States District Judge