Washington v. Lindsay
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05888
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Washington v. Lindsay, Judge Swain granted leave to amend for jurisdictional defects and denied counsel’s motion without prejudice.
Charmeen Denise Washington was allowed to amend her complaint within 60 days but was denied appointed counsel without prejudice. M.D. Lindsay of Bellevue Hospital Psychiatrist remained the named defendant; the court did not reach the merits of the claims.
What happened
In Washington v. Lindsay, Charmeen Denise Washington sued M.D. Lindsay of Bellevue Hospital Psychiatrist over alleged events at Bellevue Hospital from 2016 to the present. The complaint asserted medical-malpractice and personal-injury claims but did not clearly identify a federal-law claim or establish the requirements for a federal court to hear state-law claims.
The court found that Washington had not shown federal-question jurisdiction because she did not invoke federal law. It also found that she had not shown diversity jurisdiction because she did not provide sufficient citizenship information or allege that more than $75,000 was at stake. The court gave her 60 days to file an amended complaint explaining the facts, injuries, defendants’ actions, requested relief, and basis for federal jurisdiction.
Judge Swain denied Washington’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning she may renew it later. The court did not issue a summons and warned that the case will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if Washington does not timely amend without showing good cause; it also denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Lindsay · No. 1:23-cv-05888
- Laura Swain
- July 31, 2023
Background
Charmeen Denise Washington filed the action without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. She alleged that events occurred at Bellevue Hospital from 2016 to the present. The opinion quotes the complaint, which refers to an alleged diagnosis, prescription-related harm, homelessness, job loss, denial of education, physical pain, assault, harassment, rape, and abortion. Washington requested “$14.44 per hour” and “homeostatsis.” The opinion states that she asserted medical-malpractice and personal-injury claims. She also asked the court to appoint a lawyer.
Jurisdictional analysis
The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over federal-question cases and diversity cases. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The court found that Washington did not invoke any federal law and that her allegations did not suggest a federal-law claim.
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires the plaintiff and defendant to be citizens of different states and requires more than $75,000 to be in dispute. Washington did not specifically plead either party’s domicile, and the addresses she provided for the parties were in New York. She also did not allege that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000. The court therefore found that she had not shown complete diversity of citizenship.
Leave to amend
The court granted Washington 60 days to file an amended complaint showing a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction and detailing her claims. It directed her to identify the relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it happened, describe her injuries, and state the relief she seeks. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims Washington wants the court to consider must be repeated in the amended filing.
The court directed Washington to submit the amended complaint to the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-5888 (LTS). No summons will issue at that time. The court stated that the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if Washington does not comply within the allowed period and cannot show good cause for the failure.
Motion for counsel and appeal status
The court denied Washington’s motion for appointed counsel without prejudice because the case was too early for the court to assess its merits. The Clerk was directed to terminate that motion. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Disposition
This was a procedural order. The court did not decide whether the alleged medical-malpractice or personal-injury claims were legally valid or whether M.D. Lindsay was liable. It granted leave to amend and denied the motion for counsel without prejudice.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.