eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 1993-07

Bent v. MGH ( 1993 )


Menu:
 
  • July 20, 1993         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-1296
ELEANOR A. BENT,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Eleanor A. Bent on brief pro se.
Frank E. Reardon, Michael J. Racette and Hassan & Reardon on
brief for appellees Massachusetts  General Hospital and Cornelius
Grania, M.D.
Susan H. Williams  and Taylor, Anderson  & Travers on  brief
for appellee Falmouth Hospital.
James A. Polcari  and Dunn  & Rogers on  brief for  appellee
Alan Cordts, M.D.
Jennifer Ellis Burke and Taylor, Anderson & Travers on brief
for appellee South Shore Hospital.
John  M. Dellea and Ficksman & Conley on brief for appellees
Burton Mendel, M.D. and Lahey Clinic Foundation.
Per Curiam.   We  conclude that the  district court
properly dismissed  plaintiff's  action for  lack of  subject
matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff complained of the treatment she and her mother
received from  various private doctors and  other health care
providers.    She contended  the  providers'  conduct was  so
egregious as to amount to a deprivation of her constitutional
rights  to  privacy,  life,   liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of
happiness.     Because the defendants are all private actors,
plaintiff has failed to state any viable federal civil rights
claim under 42 U.S.C.   1983.  Mendez v. Belton,
    739 F.2d 15
    ,
17  (1st Cir. 1984).  At  best, plaintiff set forth state law
causes of action.   As complete  diversity of citizenship  is
lacking between  the parties, the federal  district court did
not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the state law  claims and
properly dismissed the action.  Lundquist v. Precision Valley
Aviation, Inc.,
    946 F.2d 8
    ,  10 (1st Cir.  1991) ("Under  28
U.S.C.   1332(a)(1), there is diversity of citizenship if the
plaintiff is a `citizen' of a different state than all of the
defendants.") (emphasis added); Franklin  v. Murphy,
    745 F.2d 1221
    , 1229 (9th Cir.  1984) (absent diversity, district court
has no subject  matter jurisdiction over medical  malpractice
claim against private defendants).
Affirmed.
-2-