RUSHING v. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, No. 1:2023cv00153 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 02/08/2023. (zcb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
RUSHING v. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHAUN AKINDOALEXANDER RUSHING, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00153 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. For the reasons explained below, the court will grant plaintiff’s IFP application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues George Washington University Hospital, also located in the District. He alleges that defendant and its physicians refused him medical attention, and refused to prescribe him antibiotics, despite his active infections. He alleges that he was also unfairly asked to vacate the hospital premises. He demands approximately 3 billion dollars in damages. It is unclear whether his claim sounds in tort (e.g., medical malpractice) or something else altogether. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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). First, plaintiff’s claims fail to raise any federal question. Second, both plaintiff and defendant are located in the District of Columbia, so there can be no diversity jurisdiction. See Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)) (“For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”). Therefore, this court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. For all of these reasons, the complaint, ECF No. 1, and the case, is dismissed without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. SO ORDERED. Date: February 8, 2023 ___________/s/____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
