Suarez v. Feistman
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-11052
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Suarez v. Feistman, Judge Stanton dismissed the action because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Susan Suarez’s action was dismissed, and the defendants were no longer required to litigate this action in federal court. The court also declined to grant Suarez leave to amend.
What happened
In Suarez v. Feistman, Susan Suarez, representing herself, sued Jonathan Feistman and other defendants over eye surgery. She alleged that the risks were not properly explained, silicone was injected into her eye, and she suffered side effects and worsening vision. She sought $10 million.
The court concluded that Suarez did not state facts showing a claim under federal law, despite citing several federal statutes. It also concluded that she had not shown that she and all defendants were citizens of different states, as required for diversity jurisdiction. The court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to allow Suarez to file an amended complaint because the court found that the defects could not be fixed by amendment. The court also terminated all other pending matters.
The detailed version
- Suarez v. Feistman · No. 1:20-cv-11052
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 17, 2021
Background
Susan Suarez, appearing without a lawyer, brought this action against Jonathan Feistman, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, NYC Retina-Manhattan, and other named defendants. She alleged that, during eye surgery at NYC-Retina Manhattan on or about March 6, 2019, Feistman did not fully disclose the dangers and risks of the surgery. She alleged that silicone was injected into her eye and that she later experienced tremors, constant ear infections, migraines, and worsening vision. She sought $10 million in damages.
Suarez invoked federal-question jurisdiction and cited several federal statutes, including Title XIX, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396, 1981, 1983, and 1984, 51 U.S.C. § 20137, and 18 U.S.C. § 1347. The court had previously granted her application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Court’s Analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a case filed without payment of the filing fee if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court must also dismiss an action when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the legal power to hear the case.
The court held that Suarez’s citation to federal statutes did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because she alleged no facts showing that her claims arose under federal law. The court explained that merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction does not create that jurisdiction.
The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which can allow a federal court to hear state-law claims when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court stated that Suarez alleged she was a New York citizen but did not identify the citizenship of all defendants. The court further stated that her allegations suggested that Feistman, NYC Retina-Manhattan, and Mount Sinai Beth Israel were also citizens of New York. The court therefore found that Suarez had not shown complete diversity of citizenship.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. The clerk was directed to mail Suarez a copy of the order and note service on the docket, and all other pending matters were terminated. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.