Vega v. Kirschenbaum

Background

Frank R. Vega brought the action without a lawyer against Ira Kirschenbaum, M.D., and Bronx Lebanon Hospital. He proceeded without prepaying filing fees. On the court’s general complaint form, Vega checked federal-question jurisdiction and identified “NEGLEGENCE” as the federal constitutional or statutory right allegedly violated. He described his claims as “Malpractice,” “Injury to knees,” and “loss of motion after surgery.” He did not state when the relevant events occurred and did not complete the form’s sections concerning his injuries and requested relief.

Jurisdictional analysis

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or over disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Vega’s negligence and malpractice allegations were state-law claims, and he did not identify a federal statute or otherwise show a federal-law basis for them. Merely checking the federal-question box did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

The court also found that Vega had not alleged facts establishing diversity jurisdiction. He did not provide facts showing complete diversity of citizenship, did not plausibly allege damages exceeding $75,000, and did not explain why the defendants should be liable for monetary damages. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Because no federal claim was currently stated, the court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims—over the negligence and malpractice claims.

Leave to replead and disposition

Because Vega was representing himself and the court found that amendment might cure the defects, the court granted him 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must include facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, the relevant events and dates, what each defendant did or failed to do, Vega’s injuries, and the relief he seeks. The court directed Vega to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-6352. If he did not comply and could not show good cause, the clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

The court instructed the clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Vega permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The opinion did not decide whether Vega’s negligence or malpractice allegations were legally valid on their merits.