Washington v. Malzberg
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-09835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Washington v. Malzberg, Judge Swain dismissed Washington’s complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Charmeen Denise Washington’s federal lawsuit against Gregory Malzberg, M.D., and Mount Sinai Hospital was dismissed because the court found no federal subject matter jurisdiction; the opinion states that the claims may still be pursued in the appropriate state court.
What happened
In Washington v. Malzberg, Charmeen Denise Washington, representing herself, sued Gregory Malzberg, M.D., and Mount Sinai Hospital. She alleged that she was denied medical treatment after an assault and sought $50,000 for neglect and breach of a code of honor.
The court ruled that Washington’s allegations involved state-law medical neglect and malpractice, not a federal claim. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because the complaint indicated that both Washington and the defendant were from New York.
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied leave to amend. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied Washington’s request to proceed without paying fees for an appeal and directed the Clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Malzberg · No. 1:23-cv-09835
- Laura Swain
- June 10, 2024
Background
Charmeen Denise Washington filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. She sued Gregory Malzberg, M.D., and Mount Sinai Hospital. Washington alleged that she was assaulted and then denied treatment at Mount Sinai West. She described her injury as “Neglect” and requested $50,000 for “Neglect and Breach of Code of Honor.”
Jurisdiction
The court examined whether it had authority to hear the case. Washington invoked federal-question jurisdiction, but the court found that her allegations of medical neglect and malpractice arose under state law and did not state a viable federal claim. The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which can apply to state-law claims when the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is in dispute. The court found that the complaint indicated that both Washington and the defendant were from New York, so complete diversity was absent. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Leave to Amend and Prior Filing Restriction
The court explained that people representing themselves generally receive an opportunity to amend defective complaints, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. Because Washington pleaded no facts suggesting a basis for federal jurisdiction, the court denied leave to amend.
The court also noted that, in an earlier related proceeding, Washington had been barred from filing future civil actions in this court without preapproval if she sought to proceed without prepaying fees. This action was filed before that bar order was issued.
Disposition
The court dismissed Washington’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The opinion does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation. It states that the dismissal does not prevent Washington from pursuing her claims against the defendant in the appropriate state court. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.