United States District Court, D. Maryland
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
above-captioned cases are identical in claims asserted and
the relief sought. The latter-filed complaint was transferred
to this Court from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia on September 18, 207..
See Civil Action GJH-17-2763 at ECF 6. The
complaints are identical and the cases shall be consolidated
for all purposes. Because he appears to be indigent.
Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis shall be
granted. For the reasons stated below, the complaint must be
dismissed and the consolidated cases closed.
alleges that m May of 2017, he "ended up" in Laurel
Regional Hospital because he was experiencing suicidal
ideation and was taken there by Prince George's County
Police. ECF 1 at p. 3. He states that the social worker at
Laurel Regional could not get him admitted to a crisis center
in Glen Burnie, Maryland as he had requested and, instead,
had him admitted to a crisis center in Hyattsville, Maryland,
a city Plaintiff describes as "one of the most dangerous
cities in Prince George's County and Maryland in
general." Id. He states that the crisis center
in Glen Burnie would not accept his medical insurance.
Id. He claims these events constitute a
“material breach of contract.'" Id.
further alleges that the social worker at the Laurel Hospital
was negligent because when Plaintiff was discharged he asked
the cab driver to take him to the White Flint Mall, which had
been demolished. ECF I at p. 4. He asserts that the social
worker should have informed him that the mall had been
demolished and, because he was not so informed, he "had
to wander the streets of Rockville, Md and Bethesda, Md"
and "became confused, disheveled, and suicidal
again." Id. Plaintiff states he had to call
Montgomery County police to come pick him up "because he
was suicidal and confused (stemming from his disappointment
that White Flint Mall had been demolished and . . . he had
nowhere to hang around and eat and sleep due to his
homelessness)." Id. Plaintiff concludes that
"Laurel Regional Hospital did not hold him long enough
to help [him] formulate cohesive thoughts and to come up with
a gameplan for survival." Id. at p. 5. He seeks
damages of $250.000. Id. at pp. 5 - 6.
filed both complaints in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
S 1915(a)(1), which permits an indigent litigant to commence
an action in this Court without prepaying the filing fee. To
guard against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute
requires dismissal of any claim that is frivolous or
malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. S 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). This Court is
mindful, however, of its obligation to liberally construe
self-represented pleadings, such as the instant complain..
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In
evaluating such a complain,, the factual allegations are
assumed to be true. Id. at 93 (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)).
Nonetheless, liberal construction does not mean that this
Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege
facts which set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990);
see also Beaudel1 v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,
1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may not
"conjure up questions never squarely presented.")-
In making this determination, "[f]he district court need
not look beyond the complain''s allegations [but] it
must hold the pro se complaint to less stringent standards
than pleadings drafted by attorneys and must read the
complaint liberally." White v. White, 886 F.2d
721, 722-723 (4th Cir. 1989).
a complaint need not contain detailed allegations, the facts
alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level and require "more than labels and
conclusions, " as "courts are not bound to accept
as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must contain
"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Id. at 570. Once a
claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by
showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in
the complaint. Id. at 561.
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), a pleading which sets forth a claim
for relief, shall contain "(1) a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction,
unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs
no new jurisdiction support, (2) a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . .
." Moreover, each "allegation must be
simple, concise, and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1).
"Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere statements, do not suffice."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
instant complaint does not comply with federal pleading
requirements. There is no federal cause of action that arises
under the facts as stated by Plaintiff. There simply is no
federal law that requires hospital staff to secure admission
to a crisis center of Plaintiff's choice, or to advise
him of where he should go when he leaves the facility. It is
well-settled law that complaint allegations must "give
the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v.
Sorema N. A.,534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Here, there is no discernible claim
or injury warranting a response from the named Defendant.
Plaintiffs dissatisfaction with the services provided does
not state a federal cause of action, nor does it ...