Martin v. Gwinnett Medical Center Labor & Delivery/Nursing Dept.

Filing 8

Order to Dismiss without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 11/14/11. (sk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
YOHONIA M. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GWINNETT MEDICAL
CENTER, LABOR &
DELIVERY/NURSING DEPT.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11-CV-284-RWS

Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Yohonia Martin, pro se, filed this action on October 13, 2011
against Gwinnett Medical Center, Labor & Delivery/Nursing Department and
requested that she be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. On November 1,
2011, Magistrate Judge Susan S. Cole entered an order granting Plaintiff’s
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and directed the Clerk to assign the case
for a frivolity determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), "the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." A claim is

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

frivolous when it appears from the face of the complaint that the factual
allegations are "clearly baseless" or that the legal theories are "indisputably
meritless." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carrol v. Gross, 984
F.2d 393, 393 (11th Cir. 1993).
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed as this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. In the absence of an express grant of statutory jurisdiction,
original jurisdiction may be predicated upon the presence of either a federal
question or diversity of citizenship. Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d
1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). In her Complaint, Plaintiff makes clear that she is
bringing state law claims, asserting “[violation of] the right of privacy[, . . .]
invasion of right of privacy by unlawful publication[,] . . . negligence[,] medical
malpractice[,] willful and malicious acts[, violation of the] emergency room
standard of care[, and violation of the] patient[’]s right to know.” Compl., Dkt.
No. [5] at 2. None of these claims arise out of federal law.
Further, diversity does not exist in this action as a Georgia Plaintiff has
brought a claim against a Georgia Defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus, this
Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter and the action must be

2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

DISMISSED, without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Motion for Conference [6] is
DENIED, AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of November, 2011.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)