Opinion
CASE NO. 1:20 CV 355
04-27-2020
ANTHONY S. FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER KASPEROVICH, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action was removed by defendants to this Court from the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. # 1). Presently before the Court is the motion of defendants Officer Kasperovich, Officer Loesch, and Officer Szymanski (collectively "Police Defendants") to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. # 3). Defendants Elyria University Hospital and Rachel Askew (collectively "Hospital Defendants") also seek dismissal pursuant to Rule 12, incorporating the motion of the Police Defendants. (Doc. # 8).
For the reasons the follow, defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims are granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Anthony S. Fowler initially filed this action in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. # 1-1). Plaintiff alleges in his brief Complaint that on January 12, 2019, his civil rights were violated by "arresting officers" defendants Officers Kasperovich and Loesch who "abused me bad," and that defendant Officer Szymanski "saved me from getting more bodily harm." Plaintiff also accuses Elyria University Hospital of "falsifying medical info" and identifies Rachel Aksew and the "head nurse of Elyria Hospital criminal ward." (Id. at 2).
Based upon these sparse facts and without further elaboration, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserts the following claims against defendants: excessive force, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, medical malpractice, falsifying medical reports, falsifying police reports, and "HEPA" medical right violation. (Id.). Defendants removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 based upon the Court's original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3), and the Court's supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's pendent state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. (Doc. # 1 at 1).
It appears that Plaintiff may be attempting to assert a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). To the extent the Plaintiff is asserting a HIPAA claim, that claim is dismissed because HIPAA does not provide a private cause of action. See Simmons v. N.E.O.C.C. Med. Dep't, No. 4:16CV1932, 2016 WL 6995292, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2016) (collecting cases).
Subsequently, the Police Defendants and the Hospital Defendants moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12. (Doc. # 3, 8 respectively). The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file a combined response to defendants' motions (Doc. # 11) but, as of the date of this Order, no response has been filed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint is subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) if it fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a dismissal, a complaint "must present 'enough facts to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face'" when its factual allegations are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). That said, the Court is not required to accept as true conclusory claims unsupported by factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) ("While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations."). And, although pleadings and documents filed by pro se litigants are "liberally construed" and held to a less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading requirements and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App'x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001).
III. ANALYSIS
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of his rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Defendants argue that their motions to dismiss Plaintiff's § 1983 claims should be granted because the Complaint contains no factual allegations that support Plaintiff's conclusory claim that defendants violated his constitutional rights or the laws of the United States. (Doc. # 3 at 4).
Defendants' arguments are well-taken. Plaintiff's perfunctory claims are entirely conclusory and the Complaint is devoid of factual allegations reasonably suggesting that defendants are liable for violating his rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Accordingly, the Police Defendants' and the Hospital Defendants' Rule 12 motions to dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims are granted, and those claims are dismissed.
Given the early stage at which Plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed and there being no other basis for original jurisdiction apparent from the Complaint or defendants' Notice of Removal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiff's state law claims, which are better resolved by the Ohio state courts. Generally, "[w]hen all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims, or remanding them to state court if the action was removed." Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Therefore, Plaintiff's state law claims are remanded to the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. Packard v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Columbus Inc., 423 F. App'x 580, 584-85 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirming decision of the district court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanding a removed action to state court after dismissing federal claims).
IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Police Defendants' and the Hospital Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims are GRANTED, and Plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED.
To the extent that defendants' motions seek dismissal of Plaintiff's state law claims, the motions are denied in part without prejudice.
Further for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and Plaintiff's state law claims are REMANDED to the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Dan Aaron Polster 4/27/2020
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE