Scutt v. Kaiser Permanente Wailuku Medical Office et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
JASON SCUTT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KAISER PERMANENTE WAILUKU
MEDICAL OFFICE AND MAUI
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 20-00187 HG-WRP
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANT
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING
FEES AND DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANT PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES AND
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on April 24, 2020, against Kaiser
Permanente Wailuku Medical Office and Maui Memorial Hospital. See ECF No.
1. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Application). See ECF No. 2. After careful
consideration of the Complaint and Application, the Court FINDS AND
RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT Plaintiff’s Application and
DISMISS the Complaint with leave to amend.
Case 1:20-cv-00187-HG-WRP Document 6 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

2
DISCUSSION
I. The Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT
Plaintiff’s Application
Courts may authorize the commencement of any suit without
prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that the person is unable
to pay such fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). For purposes of determining
whether to grant an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, “an
affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or
give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with
the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S.
331, 339 (1948) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s Application states
that she receives $50 in income from a start-up business and less than $200 in
income from part-time consulting work. See ECF No. 2 at 2. Based on the
information provided in Plaintiff’s Application, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
demonstrated that she is unable to pay court fees at this time and recommends that
the district court GRANT Plaintiff’s Application. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Case 1:20-cv-00187-HG-WRP Document 6 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

3
II. The Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS
Plaintiff’s Complaint with Leave to Amend
The court must subject each action commenced under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the dismissal of any claims it finds
“frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)
(holding that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to
prisoners”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to sua
sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim).
Additionally, the Court has an obligation to investigate whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by
the Court at any time. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc.,
360 F.3d 960, 966-67 (9th Cir. 2004). In order for a claim properly to be in the
United States District Court, the Court must have either (1) federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332.
First, the Complaint does not assert any federal causes of action, such
that the court could have federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28
Case 1:20-cv-00187-HG-WRP Document 6 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

4
U.S.C. § 1331. See ECF No. 1. Instead, it appears that Plaintiff is asserting a state
law negligence claim against Defendants related to medical care that she received
in 2018 and 2019. See ECF No. 1 at 3-7. Based on the allegations in the
Complaint, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s
claims do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
Second, diversity jurisdiction is available in actions between parties
who are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Subject matter
jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 “requires
complete diversity of citizenship; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a
different state than each of the defendants.” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236
F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68
(1996)). Based on the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff is a citizen of Hawaii
and Defendant Kaiser Permanente Wailuku Medical Office is a citizen of
California. See ECF No. 1 at 3 (stating that Kaiser Permanente is incorporated in
California and has its principal place of business in California). However, Plaintiff
does not provide any allegations regarding the citizenship of Defendant Maui
Memorial Medical Center but does provide its address, which is in Hawaii. See id.
at 2. Even if there is diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendant
Kaiser Permanente Wailuku Medical Office, there must be complete diversity of
citizenship between Plaintiff and all Defendants. See Caterpillar Inc., 519 U.S. at
Case 1:20-cv-00187-HG-WRP Document 6 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

5
68. Because Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege federal jurisdiction,
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed.
Although the Complaint is deficient, the Court recognizes that
“[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . . , a pro se
litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to
amend.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Lopez
v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Accordingly, the Court
RECOMMENDS that the Complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice and
Plaintiff be given leave to file an amended complaint no later than thirty days from
the district court’s adoption of this Findings and Recommendation. If Plaintiff
chooses to file an amended complaint, she must include factual allegations
demonstrating diversity jurisdiction exists, the document must be clearly
designated as the “First Amended Complaint,” must be retyped or rewritten, and
may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint by reference. See Local
Rule 10.4.
Case 1:20-cv-00187-HG-WRP Document 6 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

6
CONCLUSION
The Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court:
1) GRANT Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees;
2) DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to file an amended
complaint curing the deficiencies identified above no later than thirty days from
the district court’s adoption of this Findings and Recommendation;
3) REFER the screening of any amended complaint to the
undersigned;
4) CAUTION Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint
within the time frame specified above will result in the automatic dismissal of this
action.
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, APRIL 28, 2020.
SCUTT V. KAISER PERMANENTE WAILUKU MEDICAL OFFICE, ET AL.;
CIVIL NO. 20-00187 HG-WRP; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT GRANT PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
Case 1:20-cv-00187-HG-WRP Document 6 Filed 04/28/20 Page 6 of 6
PageID.<pageID>