Taylor v. Adventist Florida Hospital et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying as moot 19 Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; denying as moot 20 motion to dismiss; denying as moot 21 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 2/14/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
MAURICE O. TAYLOR II,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:16-cv-2220-Orl-37KRS

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM;
DR. RODRIGO NEHGME; DR. JOHN
CHEESEBREW; DR. STEVEN DAVIS;
CITY OF MAITLAND FIRE RESCUE
DEPARTMENT CHIEF KIM NEISLER;
RDV PROPERTIES, INC.; CIGNA
CORPORATION; and PHILIPS
HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This action is before the Court on the following:
(1)

Defendant’s Steven Davis, M.D., Unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 19), filed January 31, 2017;

(2)

Defendant Adventist Health System’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20), filed
February 6, 2017;

(3)

Defendant’s, Rodrigo Nehgme, M.D., Motion to Quash Service of Process
and

to

Dismiss

Plaintiff’s

Amended

Complaint

(Doc.

21),

filed

February 10, 2016; and
(4)

The Court’s sua sponte review of the grounds for its exercise of subject
matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND

Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff initiated this action on December 27, 2016, by filing a

completed blank form provided by this Court to create and file civil complaints (“Initial
Complaint”). (See Doc. 1.) Upon sua sponte review, the Court directed Plaintiff to show
cause why the action should not be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
(Doc. 10 (“Show Cause Order”).) Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s timely response
(Doc. 13 (“Response”)), which asserted that the Court may exercise federal question
jurisdiction based on two criminal statutes (“Statutes”)—18 U.S.C. § 371 (criminal
conspiracy) and § 1347(A)(1)(2)(b) (criminal health care fraud)—the Court dismissed the
Initial Complaint and closed this action because the identified Statutes do not authorize
private civil actions. (Doc. 15 (“January Order”).)
Five days after the Court closed this action, Plaintiff filed an unauthorized
Amended Complaint against Defendants Adventist Health System (“Adventist”),
RDV Properties (“RDVP”), Dr. Rodrigo Nehgme (“Dr. Nehgme”), Dr. John Cheesebrew
(“Dr. Cheesebrew”), Dr. Steven Davis, City of Maitland Fire Rescue Department Chief
Kim Neisler, Cigna Corporation, and Philips Healthcare Informatics, Inc. (See Doc. 18,
pp. 2–4.) Adventist, Dr. Davis, and Dr. Nehgme all filed motions to dismiss. (Docs. 19, 20,
21.) Although Plaintiff has not yet responded to these motions, the Court must again
dismiss in accordance with its duty to “zealously insure that jurisdiction exists.” See Smith
v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011).
DISCUSSION
The “Statement of Claim” in the Amended Complaint—like the Initial Complaint—
concerns a “medical event” that initially occurred at RDVP and ultimately resulted in
allegedly unnecessary and unwanted heart surgery. (See Doc. 18, pp. 7–11.) Plaintiff’s
discrete claims against the various Defendants are for medical malpractice, negligence,

2

“lack of intervention,” and criminal conspiracy to commit health care fraud (“Conspiracy
Claim”). (See id.) As he did in his Response, Plaintiff contends that the Court has “federal
question” jurisdiction over this action based on the criminal Statutes. (See id. at 5.)
Accordingly, as in the January Order, the Court again finds that Plaintiff has failed to
establish that any grounds exist to support this Court’s exercise of subject matter
jurisdiction in this action. (See Doc. 15, p. 2.) Because the Amended Complaint is due to
be dismissed, the pending motions are due to be denied as moot.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

2.

Defendant’s Steven Davis, M.D., Unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 19) is DENIED AS MOOT.

3.

Defendant Adventist Health System’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is
DENIED AS MOOT.

4.

Defendant’s, Rodrigo Nehgme, M.D., Motion to Quash Service of Process
and to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 21) is DENIED AS
MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on February 14, 2017.

3

Copies:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Party

4