Kononen v. Oregon Health Authority et al, No. 6:2021cv00171 - Document 15 (D. Or. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: This Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims and the Amended Complaint must be DISMISSED and plaintiff's IFP Application 2 is DENIED. Arbaugh v. Y &H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006); Fed. R. Civ . P. 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3). Because the Court already provided plaintiff with notice of this particular deficiency and the opportunity to amend, this dismissal is without leave to amend and a judgment shall be entered accordingly. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 631, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Signed on 4/8/2021 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 4/8/2021.) (ck)

Download PDF
Kononen v. Oregon Health Authority et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION KATIE M. KONONEN, Case No. 6:21-cv-00171-AA OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY; CAPITAL DENTAL INSURANCE; CAPITOL DENTAL CARE INC., Defendants. AIKEN, District Judge: Plaintiff Katie M. Kononen brings this action pro se and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. 2. On February 9, 2021, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend within 30 days pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Doc. 7. Thereafter, plaintiff filed several batches of documents in this case. Docs. 9, 12. Each time, the Court issued orders explaining that the documents did not include the information needed to be considered as an amended complaint. Docs. 8, 11. On March 25, 2021, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss the action for her failure to prosecute or file an amended complaint within 14 days. Doc. 10. Plaintiff filed a Response to the Show Cause Order (doc. 13) on April 2, 2021, and an Amended Complaint (doc. 14) on April 6, 2021. Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com The Court has reviewed the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and has determined that it, like the original Complaint, must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Unlike the Complaint, which asserted federal question jurisdiction based on 10 U.S.C. § 2733(a), the Amended Complaint does not assert any basis for jurisdiction. However, it appears to assert a claim for “medical negligence,” doc. 14 at 2, which is a state law matter and, thus, fails to invoke federal question jurisdiction. As explained in the last IFP screening Opinion, to establish diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff must allege diversity of citizenship and that damages are more than $75,000. Doc. 7 at 1. But the Amended Complaint fails to include any allegations concerning the citizenship of the parties or the amount of damages and, in any event, all parties appear to be citizens of Oregon. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims and the Amended Complaint must be DISMISSED and plaintiff’s IFP Application (doc. 2) is DENIED. Arbaugh v. Y &H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3). Because the Court already provided plaintiff with notice of this particular deficiency and the opportunity to amend, this dismissal is without leave to amend and a judgment shall be entered accordingly. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 631, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). 8th day of April 2021. IT IS SO ORDERED and DATED this ____ /s/Ann Aiken __________________________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

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.