United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
KENYA JORDAN, No. 262678, Plaintiff,
DR. BRIAN BEATTY, et al, Defendants.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an inmate of the Tennessee Prison for Women in Nashville,
Tennessee, brings this pro se, in forma pauperis
action against Dr. Brian Beatty and Summit Hospital, alleging
claims of medical malpractice, negligence, and gross
negligence. (Doc. No. 1).
complaint is before the Court for an initial review pursuant
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
PLRA Screening Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any
portion of a civil complaint filed in forma pauperis
that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
is frivolous, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. Section 1915 A similarly requires
initial review of any "complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity, "
id. § 1915 A(a), and summary dismissal of the
complaint on the same grounds as those articulated in §
1915(e)(2)(B). Id. § 1915A(b).
Sixth Circuit has confirmed that the dismissal standard
articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly. 550U.S. 544(2007), "governs dismissals
for failure to state a claim under those statutes because the
relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule
12(b)(6)." Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71
(6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive scrutiny on initial review,
"a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). "[A] district court must (1) view the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and
(2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true."
Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA. LLC, 561F.3d
478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v.
Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations
pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jourdan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), the courts'
"duty to be 'less stringent' with pro
se complaints does not require us to conjure up
[unpleaded] allegations." McDonald v. Hall, 610
F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted).
complaint alleges that, on August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff
underwent a hysterectomy performed by Dr. Brian Beatty at
Summit Hospital in Nashville, Tennessee. According to the
complaint, the Plaintiff experienced complications
immediately upon returning home from her surgery, including
excessive bladder leakage. The Plaintiff went to the
emergency room, where a catheter was inserted to control the
leak. The Plaintiff ultimately underwent a second surgery on
October 1, 2015, to correct a puncture to her fistula and to
repair her urethra, problems that had not existed prior to
her hysterectomy. The Plaintiff was under a doctor's care
until December 1, 2015. (Doc. No. 1 at pp. 2-3).
courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving a
federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or claims involving
parties with diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The complaint does not allege any federal claims against
either Defendant. It appears from the complaint that the
Plaintiff was not incarcerated at the time of her surgery.
The complaint states that jurisdiction is established in this
case by way of "supplemental jurisdiction" pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
in order for a federal court to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a federal plaintiffs state law claims, the
court must first have original jurisdiction pursuant to
§ 1367(a). There is no diversity jurisdiction alleged or
federal question raised in the complaint (Doc. No. 1).
Accordingly, the court finds that it lacks original subject
matter jurisdiction to hear this case. The Plaintiffs claims
therefore will be dismissed without prejudice to the
Plaintiffs ability to refile in the appropriate venue. Should
the Plaintiff refile her case in state court, she should
consider the requirements of the Tennessee Medical
Malpractice Act. See Clark v. Nashville General Hospital
at Meharry, No. 3:14-cv-1048, at *3, n.5 (M.D. Tenn.
June 6, 2014).
reviewing the complaint pursuant to the PLRA, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, it is apparent that this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the
Plaintiffs state law claims of medical malpractice,
negligence, and gross negligence. Therefore, the complaint
will be ...