From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aline v. Temple University Hospital

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 22, 2004
NO. 03-5037 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2004)

Opinion

NO. 03-5037

March 22, 2004


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Plaintiff, identifying herself as set forth in the caption, filed a "Petition for a Writ of Mandamus" against numerous defendants, all of whom appear to be affiliated either with the City of Philadelphia (the "City Defendants"), The Defender's Association of Philadelphia (the "Defender's Defendants") or Temple University (the "Temple Defendants"). The Temple Defendants answered the writ, treating it as a complaint. The Defender's Defendants appear not to have been properly served and have not filed any documents. The City Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff cannot properly bring a writ of mandamus in this Court, that the City Defendants were not properly served, and that no claims have been alleged against the City Defendants. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted with leave to amend.

Applying the liberal pleading standard afforded to pro se litigants, I will treat Plaintiff's writ as a complaint. That said, the complaint is in large part incoherent, although Plaintiff does manage to allege that her rights were violated during an encounter with security personnel at Temple Hospital. There are no allegations of any wrongdoing against the City of Philadelphia, Stephanie Marsh, or Kia Floyd. Nor are there any allegations against the Defender's Association or Luna Pattela. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed as to these Defendants. I will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint that alleges claims against these Defendants.

If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint she must properly serve it upon defendants, as the original complaint was not properly served but simply mailed to Defendants Marsh and Floyd. Pro se litigants are not excused from effecting proper service. The Clerk's Office provided Plaintiff with prepared summonses for service. Plaintiff altered those forms and then failed to serve them as required. She will be given another opportunity.

AND NOW, this ___ day of March, 2004, upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants, City of Philadelphia, Kia Floyd, and Stephanie Marsh, to which no response has been filed,

IT is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED as to Defendants City of Philadelphia, Kia Floyd, and Stephanie Marsh. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED as to Defendants The Defender's Association of Philadelphia and Luna Pattela. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that alleges a cause of action against these Defendants within 20 days of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it must be properly served upon these Defendants.


Summaries of

Aline v. Temple University Hospital

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 22, 2004
NO. 03-5037 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2004)
Case details for

Aline v. Temple University Hospital

Case Details

Full title:WE THE PEOPLE IN THE REPUBLIC CLARISSA ALINE: MITCHELL GENERAL…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 22, 2004

Citations

NO. 03-5037 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2004)