Washington v. Chong

Background

Charmeen D. Washington brought the action without a lawyer against Nabia Chong and Danielle Iacono. The opinion says Washington had an eye examination at the SUNY Optometry Clinic in midtown Manhattan on an unspecified date. She alleged that she asked Dr. Daniel Iacono not to use a particular yellow scope or machine. She further alleged that after a glaucoma machine was placed in her right eye, her right-eye vision became blurrier, her brain still hurt, and she went to Bellevue after becoming emotionally weak and gaining approximately 10 to 20 pounds in about 30 days. Dr. Nabia Chong is named as a defendant but is not mentioned in the body of the complaint. Washington sought $300,000 in damages.

Jurisdictional problem

The court explained that federal district courts generally have authority to hear cases involving a federal question or cases between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake. Washington did not identify a federal statute or other federal-law basis for her claims. The court said her allegations about the eye examination, emotional trauma, and psychiatric care did not appear to establish a claim under federal law.

The court also found that Washington had not pleaded facts establishing diversity jurisdiction. She did not specifically allege the parties’ domiciles, and the addresses she provided for all parties were in New York. The court therefore concluded that Washington had not shown that the parties were citizens of different states.

Ruling

Because Washington had not pleaded facts establishing federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the action. Rather than dismissing the complaint immediately, the court granted Washington leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must explain the relevant facts, each defendant’s conduct, the injuries, and the relief sought; it will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

The court directed Washington to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-1936 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Washington did not comply within the 60-day period and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.