Sinclair v. University of Tennessee

E.D. Arkansas

Sinclair v. University of Tennessee

DecidedDecember 3, 2020

Docket4:20-cv-01413

StatusUnknown

This text of Sinclair v. University of Tennessee (Sinclair v. University of Tennessee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sinclair v. University of Tennessee, (E.D. Ark. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION DOMINIQUE SINCLAIR PLAINTIFF 4:20-CV-01413-BRW UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 1) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 3) are DENIED. This case is DISMISSED. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated HIPPA confidentiality by signing her up for a study without her permission. Yet, she also claims that her brother signed her up for the study without her permission. Plaintiff asserts that she has suddenly found stents in her arms and legs, and wants to know where they came from. Finally, she alleges that Defendants are in possession of $25,000 of

her money. The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte at any time.1 Plaintiff asserts that she filed this case in federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. However, the reference to HIPPA is not enough to create federal question jurisdiction.2 Diversity jurisdiction also is lacking. Federal court diversity jurisdiction requires that the amount in dispute exceed $75,000 and all the parties on one side of the controversy must be citizens of different states from all of the parties on the other side.3 It appears that Plaintiff and some Defendant are both from Arkansas, so complete diversity is lacking. Additionally, Plaintiff’s

1Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 1993). 2See Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010) (“HIPPA does not create a private right of action.”). 328 U.S.C. § 1332; Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 70 (1941). complaint mentions that she does not know if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. However, she references $25,000, which does not exceed the statutory minimum. Finally, after considering the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds to a legal certainty that Plaintiff’s claims could not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.4

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 2020. Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 388 (8th Cir. 1994).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION DOMINIQUE SINCLAIR PLAINTIFF 4:20-CV-01413-BRW UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 1) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 3) are DENIED. This case is DISMISSED. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated HIPPA confidentiality by signing her up for a study without her permission. Yet, she also claims that her brother signed her up for the study without her permission. Plaintiff asserts that she has suddenly found stents in her arms and legs, and wants to know where they came from. Finally, she alleges that Defendants are in possession of $25,000 of

her money. The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte at any time.1 Plaintiff asserts that she filed this case in federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. However, the reference to HIPPA is not enough to create federal question jurisdiction.2 Diversity jurisdiction also is lacking. Federal court diversity jurisdiction requires that the amount in dispute exceed $75,000 and all the parties on one side of the controversy must be citizens of different states from all of the parties on the other side.3 It appears that Plaintiff and some Defendant are both from Arkansas, so complete diversity is lacking. Additionally, Plaintiff’s

1Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 1993). 2See Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010) (“HIPPA does not create a private right of action.”). 328 U.S.C. § 1332; Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 70 (1941). complaint mentions that she does not know if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. However, she references $25,000, which does not exceed the statutory minimum. Finally, after considering the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds to a legal certainty that Plaintiff’s claims could not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.4

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 2020. Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 388 (8th Cir. 1994).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sinclair v. University of Tennessee, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinclair-v-university-of-tennessee-ared-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack