Sommer v. Aspen Dental Management, Inc., 1:16-cv-03027

Samuel Sommer (pro se) sued Aspen Dental entities and individuals alleging dental malpractice arising from ill-fitting dentures and sought $90,000 in damages.
Sommer claimed he entered a treatment plan on April 3, 2015, for $6,183 and that the dentures caused slurring, difficulty swallowing, and drooling.
Sommer invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and cited federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The complaint contained state-law malpractice allegations but did not assert any constitutional or federal-law facts to support a § 1983 claim.
The parties’ addresses indicated New York domicile for plaintiff and defendants; the complaint did not plead complete diversity or the $75,000 amount-in-controversy required for diversity jurisdiction.
The Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied in forma pauperis status on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court has federal-question jurisdiction over the malpractice claim	Sommer invoked § 1983 and federal jurisdiction	Defendants argued (implicitly) that the claim is state-law malpractice, not federal	No federal-question jurisdiction; malpractice is a state-law claim; § 1983 not pleaded with supporting facts
Whether the Court has diversity jurisdiction	Sommer did not invoke diversity; alleged parties domiciled in New York	Defendants noted lack of complete diversity	No diversity jurisdiction; parties are not completely diverse and amount-in-controversy requirement unmet
Whether the Court must dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	Sommer proceeded pro se and paid filing fee	Court must independently assess jurisdiction regardless of fee or pro se status	Complaint dismissed without prejudice under Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether appeal in forma pauperis should be allowed	Sommer had paid filing fee and might appeal	Court evaluated good-faith basis for appeal	Appeal not taken in good faith; IFP denied for appeal under § 1915(a)(3)

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes pleading plausibility standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (distinguishes merits from jurisdictional requirements)
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (federal-question jurisdiction when claim arises under federal law)
Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (court must independently ensure subject-matter jurisdiction)
Herrick Co. v. SCS Communications, Inc., 251 F.3d 315 (complete diversity requirement)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (good-faith standard for IFP appeals)