Opinion
CASE NO. 4:15CV01363
10-21-2015
LAMETRA PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. GRANT HOSPITAL, Defendant.
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF Nos. 1 and 2]
On July 9, 2015, Plaintiff pro se Lametra Phillips filed this action against Grant Hospital, which is located in Columbus, Ohio. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff, a resident of Columbus, Ohio, ECF No. 1-1, alleges she was mistreated by nurses at the hospital after she gave birth. See ECF No. 1. In particular, she alleges she was not given pain medicine, was removed from the property, and later suffered shock as a result. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks $500,000.00 in damages. ECF No. 1. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is summarily dismissed.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v . MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam) (citing Haines v . Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)), the district court is required to dismiss an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v . Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Additionally and of importance in this case, a complaint shall be dismissed when a court lacks jurisdiction.
Even when construing Plaintiff's complaint liberally, there are no allegations indicating a proper basis for the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not invoke a federal statute in support of her claim, nor is there any suggestion of diversity of citizenship of the parties. See ECF No. 1-1. Therefore, the complaint is appropriately subject to summary dismissal. See Lowe v . Huffstutler, 902 F.2d 1569 (6th Cir. 1990) ("[Dismissal] of [the plaintiff]'s claims was proper for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint clearly indicates that both [the plaintiff] and the [defendant] were citizens of [the same state] . . . . Thus, a sua sponte dismissal of [the plaintiff]'s diversity claims was appropriate even under the standard that was announced in Neitzke.").
Because summary dismissal is appropriate, the Court will not address the questionable venue. --------
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. For the reasons given above, the complaint is summarily dismissed, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). Furthermore, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED. October 21, 2015
Date
/s/ Benita Y . Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge