Melegh v. Providence Health & Services

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 9, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01704
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DANIELLA KATALIN MELEGH, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01704-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 PROVIDENCE HEALTH & 11 SERVICES, SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER, and LAURA, 12 Defendants. 13

14 Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Plaintiff Danielle Katalin Melegh 15 filed this civil rights lawsuit against Providence Health & Services, Swedish 16 Medical Center, and Laura, Swedish Orthopedic Clinic’s manager, for alleged 17 discrimination. See Dkt. Nos. 4, 5. But she has not identified a basis for this Court’s 18 jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 5. 19 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 20 Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) provides that the 21 Court must dismiss an action if it determines, at any time, that it lacks subject 22 matter jurisdiction. “[C]ongress granted federal courts jurisdiction over two general 23 1 types of cases: cases that ‘aris[e] under’ federal law, §1331, and cases in which the 2 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship among

3 the parties, §1332(a). These jurisdictional grants are known as ‘federal-question 4 jurisdiction’ and ‘diversity jurisdiction,’ respectively.” Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. 5 Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019) (internal citation omitted). 6 Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that her case is properly filed in 7 federal court. Plaintiff must meet this burden by pleading sufficient allegations to 8 show a proper basis for the federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over

9 the action. Plaintiff has not shown that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction 10 over this case, and she has not identified a federal claim upon which she is seeking 11 relief. Plaintiff, a Washington State resident, names two other Washington State 12 residents as defendants. Dkt. No. 4 at 2. So the parties lack complete diversity. 13 In response to this Order, Plaintiff must write a short and plain statement 14 telling the Court (1) the law or laws upon which her claims are based, and (2) why 15 this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear these claims. This response may

16 not exceed three double-spaced pages. Plaintiff may not file additional pages as 17 attachments. The Court will take no further action until Plaintiff has submitted 18 this response. 19 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to respond to the questions above 20 about the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction by no later than 21 days from the date of 21 this Order. Failure to file a response will result in dismissal of this case.

22 Dated this 9th day of February 2024. 23 1 Ravi Subramanian Clerk 2 /s/ Kathleen Albert 3 Deputy Clerk 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23