Filed: May 07, 2018
Latest Update: May 07, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN , Chief District Judge . This matter comes to me on Defendants Cascadia Health Care and Pegasus Home Care's Motions to Dismiss [13, 16]. Defendants argue that pro se Plaintiff Brandon Moye, Sr.'s Complaint [1] must be dismissed for various reasons, including that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 1 Mr. Moye responded [15] and also filed a Motion to Change the Proper Name of Defendant [19]. For the following reasons, I GRANT Defendants' Motions
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN , Chief District Judge . This matter comes to me on Defendants Cascadia Health Care and Pegasus Home Care's Motions to Dismiss [13, 16]. Defendants argue that pro se Plaintiff Brandon Moye, Sr.'s Complaint [1] must be dismissed for various reasons, including that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 1 Mr. Moye responded [15] and also filed a Motion to Change the Proper Name of Defendant [19]. For the following reasons, I GRANT Defendants' Motions ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, Chief District Judge.
This matter comes to me on Defendants Cascadia Health Care and Pegasus Home Care's Motions to Dismiss [13, 16]. Defendants argue that pro se Plaintiff Brandon Moye, Sr.'s Complaint [1] must be dismissed for various reasons, including that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.1 Mr. Moye responded [15] and also filed a Motion to Change the Proper Name of Defendant [19]. For the following reasons, I GRANT Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [13, 16] and DENY AS MOOT Mr. Moye's Motion to Change the Proper Name of Defendant [19].
DISCUSSION
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts have jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where each plaintiff's citizenship is diverse from each defendant's citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332(a).
In his Complaint, Mr. Moye claimed this Court had jurisdiction based on a federal question. However, as Defendants argue, Mr. Moye has not alleged a cause of action under federal law, but instead only alleges a common-law negligence claim. Compl. [1] at 4 (stating this case concerns "negligence, cause [sic] me to reinjure[e] & cause two new injuries."). Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction on the face of Mr. Moye's Complaint.2 Mr. Moye does not allege, nor is it apparent from the face of his complaint, that there is diversity jurisdiction. Thus, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
"Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear[] . . . that the complaint could not be saved by amendment." Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 828 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002). Because Mr. Moye may be able to allege a claim arising under federal law, dismissal with leave to amend is proper.
CONCLUSION
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [13, 16] are GRANTED and Mr. Moye's Motion to Change the Proper Name of Defendant [19] is DENIED as moot. Mr. Moye's Complaint is DISMISSED, with leave to amend. Mr. Moye may file an amended complaint within 60 days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
