United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
R. ANDERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cause is before the Court on the Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis filed by Kimberly Edwards [hereinafter
"Plaintiff"], an adult resident citizen of Pickens,
Holmes County, Mississippi. Plaintiff filed a Complaint
against "St. Dominics" utilizing a form Complaint
for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
["Pro Se 5 (Rev. 12/16) Complaint for a Civil Case
Alleging Negligence"]. Plaintiff does not state the
citizenship of St. Dominics other than to give its address at
969 Lakeland Drive, Jackson, MS 39216.
only Plaintiff's income and expenses, the undersigned
finds that she is entitled to proceed without the prepayment
of fees. She is unemployed and has no income or property, and
her motion should be granted. Where the plaintiff's
financial information shows that a filing fee would cause
"undue financial hardship, " the district court has
discretion to reduce or waive the fee. Prows v.
Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff in forma pauperis status to proceed with
this lawsuit in federal court also permits the Court to
dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the
Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). This statute applies
equally to prisoner and non-prisoner cases. Newsom v.
EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231-33 (5th Cir. 2002). The case may
also be dismissed at any stage if there is no basis for
federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Complaint, III. Statement of Claim, under the section which
states "[t]he acts or omissions caused or contributed to
the cause of the plaintiff's injuries by
(explain), " Plaintiff stated:
Not taking me serious and not listening to my chief
complaints. Last but not least, listed some things on my
chart that I did not state.
[1, p. 4].
Section IV., "Relief, " Plaintiff alleged:
I had high blood pressure and a very bad kidney infection
back problems and liver problems. I was only prescribed
medicine, which was making liver problems worser and had a
light stroke. $220, 000, 000.00. When I had appointments they
wouldn't have a doctor or nurse practitioner in at least
that's what I was told. I went to the one in Durant MS
they turned me around saying I had a appointment for the one
in Lexington, MS which when I got there said they didn't
have a doctor there and I wasn't notified about the
appointment because they thought I wasn't gone keep it.
two of my major organs are now failing.
[1, p. 4].
Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and courts
"must presume that a suit lies outside of this limited
jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal
forum." Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d
912, 916 (5th Cir.2001); U.S.Const., art. III, § 2.
Subject matter jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown
before the District Court considers the merits of any case.
See Ruhrgas A.G. v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574,
582 -83 (1999). The Court must inquire into its
subject-matter jurisdiction on its own initiative.
Id. It may sua sponte raise the
jurisdictional issue at any time and in fact has a
"continuing obligation to examine the basis for
jurisdiction." MCG, Inc. v. Great W. Energy
Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir.1990)(see also
Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 465-66
(5th Cir.1999)). The record in this case fails to
affirmatively indicate a basis for subject matter
Plaintiff attempts to invoke diversity jurisdiction, she
lists all parties as being from Mississippi. Therefore, based
upon the record, complete diversity of citizenship is
lacking. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The Court must have
original jurisdiction, either via federal question or through
diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff has stated no diversity of
citizenship, nor does she set forth a claim under a federal
statute or the United States Constitution. Her claims are
generally state law tort claims based upon her contentions
that the medical care she received while hospitalized at St.
Dominics was apparently negligent. St. Dominics appears to be
a private corporation, not a government actor, and the
Complaint appears to assert only state law claims against it.
The Court cannot conclude that federal question jurisdiction
Plaintiff is prosecuting this case pro se, and her pleadings
must be liberally construed. Pena v. United States of
America, 122 F.3d 3, 4 (5th Cir. 1997).
Although the undersigned has liberally construed her
allegations, no basis for subject matter jurisdiction can be
discerned from the allegations of the Complaint. The Court is
unable to exercise jurisdiction to consider the merits of the
case. See Ruhrgas, 526 U.S. at 583. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's motion to proceed without paying costs should
be granted but her complaint should then be dismissed without
should be advised that her complaint may or may not set forth
a valid claim under state law; she may wish to file her
Complaint in justice court, county court, or ...