Opinion
Civil Action No. 19-cv-00819-LTB-GPG
05-02-2019
LORI A. SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. ST MARY'S MEDICAL CENTER-SCL-HEALTH INCORP SERVICES, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DISMISSAL
This matter comes before the Court on the Complaint (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The matter has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for recommendation (ECF No. 6). The Court has considered the entire case file, the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. This Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
"(ECF No. ___)" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the Court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this Recommendation.
Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). --------
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff, Lori A. Skinner, resides in DeBeque, Colorado. She initiated this action on March 18, 2019, by filing pro se a Complaint (ECF No. 1) and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (ECF No. 3). Ms. Skinner has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 4).
Ms. Skinner alleges in the Complaint that medical staff at St. Mary's Medical Center acted with "gross negligence" when she sought emergency room treatment in September 2018. Plaintiff does not explain how the medical providers were negligent. Ms. Skinner claims that the Defendant violated 19 U.S.C. § 1592, and alleges that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claim(s) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. She requests monetary and injunctive relief.
On March 19, 2019, the Court ordered Ms. Skinner to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days because her original Complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 4).
Ms. Skinner did not file an amended pleading by the deadline and she has not communicated with the Court since she initiated this action. Therefore, the Court reviews the sufficiency of the original Complaint filed on March 18, 2019.
II. Legal Standards
A. Pro se Litigant
The Court construes the original Complaint liberally because Ms. Skinner is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court will not act as an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
B. Rule 8 Pleading Requirements
The twin purposes of a complaint are to give the opposing parties fair notice of the basis for the claims against them so that they may respond and to allow the Court to conclude that the allegations, if proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass'n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989). The requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to meet these purposes. See TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991), aff'd, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992). Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint "must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, . . . (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." The philosophy of Rule 8(a) is reinforced by Rule 8(d)(1), which provides that "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules. Prolix, vague, or unintelligible pleadings violate Rule 8.
To comply with Rule 8, a complaint must explain what the defendant did to the plaintiff; when the defendant di it; how the defendant's action harmed the plaintiff; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
A pro se litigant's vague and conclusory allegations that his or her rights have been violated does not entitle the litigant to a day in court regardless of how liberally the pleadings are construed. See Ketchum v. Cruz, 775 F. Supp. 1399, 1403 (D. Colo. 1991)), aff'd, 961 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992). "[I]n analyzing the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint, the court need accept as true only the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual contentions, not his conclusory allegations." Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
III. Analysis
As discussed in the March 19 Order, the Complaint does not meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ms. Skinner fails to provide a short and plain statement of her claim(s) showing that she is entitled to relief. Although Plaintiff makes a conclusory assertion that the Defendant violated 19 U.S.C. § 1592, that statute does not address claims of medical negligence, but instead imposes penalties for fraud, gross negligence, and negligence in failing to pay lawful duty or tax owed to the United. See 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a)(1). The existence of a federal question is not otherwise apparent from the face of the Complaint. Further, Plaintiff does not allege any specific facts to support her claims of medical negligence, and even if she did, she cannot bring a state law tort claim in federal court unless the Complaint shows that the parties are of diverse citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (a plaintiff properly invokes § 1332 jurisdiction when he or she presents a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000). See also Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). To demonstrate federal jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332, allegations of diversity must be pleaded affirmatively. See Penteco Corp. Ltd. Partnership-1985A v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff and the Defendant are citizens or residents of different states.
I recommend that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1162 (dismissal without prejudice on basis of failure to comply with Rule 8 is within district court's discretion).
IV. Recommendation
For the reasons set forth herein, this Magistrate Judge respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DATED at Grand Junction, Colorado, this 2d day of May, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge