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, 2017.
See Civil Action GJH-17-2762 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.
states that in May of 2017, he was admitted to the University
of Maryland Hospital for treatment of suicidal ideation. ECF
I at p. 3. He was diagnosed with Type II diabetes during his
stay and was informed that his viral load for Hepatitis C is
zero. Id. Plaintiff states that he tiled "at
least one lawsuit against the NIH, CDC, FDA, and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services" because they
failed to help Plaintiff with a cure for his Hepatitis C.
Id. He claims that in the summer of 2017, after his
Type II diabetes diagnosis in Maryland, he was told by
medical staff at St. Rose San Martin Dominican Hospital in
Las Vegas, Nevada, that his blood sugar "was just
fine" and that he did not need a prescription for met
form in to treat his diabetes or for Lisinopril to treat his
high blood pressure. Id. at p. 4.
claims that the diagnosis he received at University of
Maryland Hospital was negated by the subsequent evaluation in
Nevada. He states that the diagnosis caused him to suffer
emotional distress due to the fact he had recently cured
himself of Hepatitis C and claims that "the doctors and
nurses at University of Maryland should have exercised a
'higher standard of care' before actually diagnosing
the plaintiff with Type II diabetes and high blood
pressure" because of his history with Hepatitis C.
Id. He seeks $250, 000 in damages for intentional
infliction of emotional distress and negligence. Id.
at p. 5.
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 complaint, 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 Beaudetl 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, "[t]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." While v.
While, 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 Atlanlic 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." !d. 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.
extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege a medical
malpractice claim, the complaint does not state a federal
cause of action. A state law claim of medical malpractice may
be filed in this Court if diversity jurisdiction requirements
are satisfied. Under the "well-pleaded complaint"
rule, the facts showing the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction "must be affirmatively alleged in the
complain.." Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick,
191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir.1999) (citing McNutt v.
Gen'l Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56
S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)). "A court is to
presume, therefore, that a case lies outside its limited
jurisdiction unless and until jurisdiction has been shown to
be proper." United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d
263, 274 (4th Cir.2008) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d
391 (1994)). Moreover, the "burden of establishing
subject matter jurisdiction is on . . . the
party asserting jurisdiction"" Robb Evans &
Assocs, . LLC v. Holibaugh, 609 F.3d 359, 362 (4th
Cir.2010); accord Hertz, 130 S.Ct. at 1194;
McBumey v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 408 (4th
Cir.2010). Diversity jurisdiction applies "where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . .
citizens of different States" 28 U.S.C. S I332(a)()..
"From the beginning of the diversity jurisdiction, the
rule in actions commenced by plaintiffs in federal court has
been that the citizenship of the parties at the time of
commencement of the action determines whether the requisite
diversity exists" Rowland v. Patterson, 882
F.2d 97, 98 (4th Cir.1989). In Athena Automotive, Inc. v.
DiGregorio, 166 F.3d 288, 290 (4th Cir.I999), the Court
explained: "Because diversity jurisdiction depends on
the citizenship status of the parties at the time an action
commences, we must focus our jurisdictionll inquiry solely on
that time." It is clear that both Plaintiff and
Defendant are citizens of Maryland. See ECF I at p.
6 (Plaintiffs address listed as Bowie, Md).
by separate Order which follows, the complaint shall be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of ...