Peterson v. Desert Springs Hospital
2:20-cv-00319
D. Nev.Apr 13, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff John C. Peterson filed suit against Desert Springs Hospital and others in the District of Nevada.
- The Court issued a show-cause order directing Peterson to demonstrate federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332.
- Peterson filed a Notice that relied on several old U.S. Supreme Court decisions about original jurisdiction and cited two Nevada statutes, but did not identify a federal statute conferring jurisdiction or allege facts establishing diversity.
- The Notice did not show complete diversity of citizenship or that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for § 1332 jurisdiction, nor did it plead a colorable federal question under § 1331.
- The Court concluded Peterson failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements and dismissed the case without prejudice.
- All pending motions were denied as moot and the Clerk was directed to close the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 | Cites historical Supreme Court decisions about original jurisdiction; does not identify a federal statute creating a claim | Not asserted | Court: No. Plaintiff did not plead a colorable claim "arising under" federal law; § 1331 not established |
| Whether the court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 | References Nevada statutes; provides no facts on parties' domiciles or amount in controversy | Not asserted | Court: No. Plaintiff failed to show complete diversity and that amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 |
| Appropriate remedy for lack of jurisdiction | Implied request to proceed despite jurisdictional gaps | Not applicable | Court: Dismissed without prejudice; pending motions denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (plaintiff invokes § 1331 by pleading a colorable claim arising under federal law)
- United States v. Sayward, 160 U.S. 493 (1895) (discusses original jurisdiction and amount-in-controversy under historical statute)
- Fishback v. W. Union Tel. Co., 161 U.S. 96 (1896) (affirms Sayward on original jurisdiction principles)
- Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co., 176 U.S. 68 (1900) (affirms Sayward and Fishback on original jurisdiction)