Nasir v. Bayhealth
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 1/28/2025. ***Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff on 1/28/2025*** (mws)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MALIK NASIR,
Plaintiff,
V.
BAYHEALTH,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 24-24-CFC
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Malik Nasir, Dover, Delaware - Pro Se Plaintiff
January 28, 2025
Wilmington, Delaware
I.
INTRODUCTION
On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff Malik Nasir, a resident of Delaware, filed this
civil action against Defendant Bayhealth. 1 (D.I. 2). Plaintiff appears prose and has
been granted leave to proceed informa pauperis. (D.I. 4). The Court proceeds to
review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b).
II.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from the Complaint and assumed to be true for
purposes of screening the Complaint. See Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366,
374 (3d Cir. 2021).
Lorraine Nasir passed away on December 30, 2020. (D.I. 2 at 1.) She had
experienced pains in her chest in January or February of that year, and she went to
one of Defendant Bay health's medical centers on February 4, 2020. (Id. at 2.) At
the medical center, it was noted that Lorraine Nasir had a history of breast cancer,
but she was not given a mammogram or CT scan, and she was diagnosed with a
cough and inspiratory pain. (Id.) Lon-aine Nasir returned to the medical center on
March 19, 2020, and on that date, it was determined that she had a lung mass, but
1
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Defendant is a regional healthcare
See Bayhealth: About Us,
system in central and southern Delaware.
https://www.bayhealth.org/about-us (last visited January 23, 2025).
she did not receive a diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer until a subsequent visit on
April 13, 2020. (Id.) Once diagnosed, Lorraine Nasir received treatment, but she
passed away eight months after the diagnosis. (Id. at 3.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks $1 million from Defendant for medical
negligence, arising from Lorraine Nassir' s initial misdiagnosis, her delayed
diagnosis and treatment, and her wrongful death. (See id. at 1, 5.) Plaintiff asks for
the statute of limitations to be waived for two reasons.
First, Plaintiff was
incarcerated when Lorraine Nassir passed way, and he was not released until January
27, 2023, at which time he filed a civil action alleging the above claims with the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware, which was subsequently dismissed for
untimeliness and lack of expert affidavit. (Id. at 1.) Second, under a novel theory
of continuing treatment, if not for Defendant's medical negligence, Lorraine Nassir
would still be alive today, rendering Plaintiff's claims timely. (Id. at 5.)
III.
SCREENING OF COMPLAINT
A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening
provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if"the action is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F .3d 448, 452
(3d Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (informa
2
pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as
true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v.
County ofAllegheny, 515 F .3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff proceeds
prose, his pleading is liberally construed and his Complaint, "however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim.
See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d. 366,374 (3d Cir. 2020). Rather, a claim is deemed
frivolous only where it relies on an "'indisputably meritless legal theory' or a 'clearly
baseless' or 'fantastic or delusional' factual scenario."' Id.
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on
Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236,240 (3d Cir. 1999).
A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive
plausibility. See Johnson v. City ofShelby, 574 U.S. 10, 12 (2014) (per curiam). A
complaint may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the legal
theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 11.
3
A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps:
( 1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify
allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the
assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume
their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.
Connelly v. Lane Cons tr. Corp., 809 F .3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016).
Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the complaint "show" that the
plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that requires
the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.
IV.
DISCUSSION
This case presents a personal injury medical malpractice claim, arising from
Delaware state law. See Del. Code 18 § 6802 ("The Superior Court of the State shall
have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions alleging health care medical
negligence."). Generally, diversity jurisdiction is required for this Court to hear a
state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(l ). Diversity jurisdiction exists when the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of$75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and the suit is between citizens of different states. See id. In this case, Plaintiff
does not allege diversity jurisdiction, and the allegations in the Complaint do not
4
establish diversity jurisdiction, as Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of
Delaware. (See D.I. 2; D.I. 2-1.) Employing the less stringent standard afforded to
pro se litigants, see Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94, the Court cannot discern from the
allegations in the Complaint any basis for a viable federal claim, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 13 31. Plaintiffs state law medical negligence claim appears to be deficiently pied,
and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear it.
See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(l). Accordingly, dismissal of the Complaint is appropriate.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice,
and an appropriate Order will be entered.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?