Simmons v. Washington Metropolitan Orthopedic
This text of Simmons v. Washington Metropolitan Orthopedic (Simmons v. Washington Metropolitan Orthopedic) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OCT 2 9 2014
Clerk, US. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
Charles Simmons, ) )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action NO. /$‘- NW
Washington Metropolitan Orthopedic, ) )
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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).
Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing a medical facility in Oxon Hill, Maryland. See Comp]. Caption. He alleges that defendant performed a total hip replacement in April 2013, but has refused his request for his x-rays “so he can move forward in getting the [corrective] surgery” he needs tO alleviate his pain and suffering. Compl. at 1-2. Plaintiff seeks
an order to compel the defendant to provide his x-rays. 1
The complaint does not present a federal question, and plaintiff does not seek money
damages. Hence, this case will be dismissed without prejudice for want of subject matter
jurisdiction.1 A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
United S tes District Judge DATE: October 2 3 , 2014
‘ Plaintiff s recourse may lie in a court in the State of Maryland capable of exercising personal
jurisdiction over the Maryland-based defendant. 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Simmons v. Washington Metropolitan Orthopedic, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-washington-metropolitan-orthopedic-dcd-2014.