Duymayan v. Valley Hospital Medical Center

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00221
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 MERT DUYMAYAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00221-APG-NJK 8 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 v.

10 VALLEY HOSPITAL, 11 Defendant. 12 The Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute before 13 it, an issue it may raise at any time during the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 14 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by the 15 Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). “A federal court is 16 presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock 17 West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 18 “The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in 19 federal court.” McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. 20 General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). 21 Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s case relates 22 to a psychiatric hold in the hospital. Docket No. 1-1 at 4. The complaint identifies no federal 23 cause of action or federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, diversity jurisdiction pursuant 24 to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) does not exist here because Plaintiff submits that he is a resident of Nevada 25 and Defendant is a corporation incorporated in Nevada. See Docket No. 1-1 at 3-4. Moreover, 26 there appears to be no plausible basis on which to allege jurisdiction; therefore, amendment of the 27 complaint is not warranted. 28 ] Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Docket No. 1. 2|)| Further, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED for lack of subject 3] matter jurisdiction. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: March 21, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe — 7 United § ates Magistrate Judge 8 NOTICE 9 This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned 10] to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and 11] recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen 12|| days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file 13] a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 14] F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28