Peterson v. Desert Springs Hospital

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JOHN C. PETERSON, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-00319-GMN-VCF 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 10 On February 18, 2020, the Court entered an Order directing pro se Plaintiff John 11 Peterson (“Plaintiff”) to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss this action for 12 failure to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332. 13 (Min. Order, ECF No. 3). In the Order, the Court indicated that it did not recognize a 14 statute in Plaintiff’s Complaint where jurisdiction is independently conferred. The Court 15 also advised Plaintiff that if he sought to invoke diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff had to show 16 that the complete diversity requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) is satisfied and that the 17 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Moreover, the Court informed Plaintiff that 18 failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in Plaintiff’s case being dismissed 19 without prejudice. On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice, (ECF No. 4), in response to 20 the Court’s Order. 21 Upon review of Plaintiff’s Notice, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed identify a 22 statute in his Complaint where jurisdiction is independently conferred. See Arbaugh v. Y&H 23 Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (“A plaintiff properly invokes [Section] 1331 jurisdiction 24 when she pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United 25 States.”). Similarly, Plaintiff has not provided any facts tending to show that the complete 1 diversity requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) is satisfied in this case and that the amount 2 in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Instead, Plaintiff’s Notice merely lists three U.S. 3 Supreme Court opinions generally addressing original jurisdiction: United States v. Sayward, 4 160 U.S. 493 (1895) (providing that under the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1887, as corrected by 5 the Act of August 13, 1888, “the circuit courts . . . shall have original cognizance, concurrent 6 with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, . . . where the matter in dispute 7 exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising 8 under the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . .”); Fishback v. W. Union Tel. Co., 161 9 U.S. 96 (1896) (affirming Sayward); Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co., 176 U.S. 68 (1900) (affirming 10 Sayward and Fishback). Further, Plaintiff’s Notice summarily references two Nevada Revised 11 Statutes, one of which is a criminal negligence statute, without any analysis addressing 12 jurisdiction. (Pl.’s Notice at 3, ECF No. 4) (citing NRS § 629.061; NRS § 200.495). As 13 such, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over 14 this action. Plaintiff’s case is therefore dismissed without prejudice. 15 I. CONCLUSION 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court has 17 subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED 18 without prejudice. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of the above, all currently pending 20 motions are DENIED as moot. 21 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 22 DATED this __1_0__ day of April, 2020. 23 24 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 25 United States District Court