Greene v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., US Automovile Assoc., f et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 16 Motion of plaintiff for Reconsideration; the Court AFFIRMS its dismissal of this case for failure to state a claim for relief. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 9/25/2017. (c/m 9/25/17 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
HAROLD GREENE

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

USAA CASUALTY INS. CO., et al.

*

Defendants
*

*

CIVIL NO. JKB-17-1854

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Harold Greene filed suit pro se on May 19, 2017, in the District Court of
Maryland against USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”), Thomas E. Price, M.D.,
Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (the latter two Defendants referred to collectively as “the
Government”). (Compl., ECF No. 2.) The stated causes of action were contract, replevin, and
bad faith insurance claim. (Id.) Greene alluded to “extortionate government subrogation” and
wanted “pain and suffering settlement . . . funds” from USAA to be paid into the court‟s registry
“to protect MEDICARE.” (Id.)
The Government removed the case to this Court because of its jurisdiction over cases
against federal agencies. (Notice of Removal 2, ECF No. 1.) Subsequently, USAA moved to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 10), to which Greene filed his
response in which he complained that USAA had “low balled” his car damage claim (ECF
No. 13).

The Court granted the motion to dismiss and concurrently dismissed sua sponte the
complaint against the Government; the Court concluded that, even after liberally interpreting
Greene‟s complaint, it was unable to discern a viable cause of action in the case. (Aug. 24, 2017,
Mem. 1-2, ECF No. 14.) Consequently, the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
(Aug. 24, 2017, Order, ECF No. 15.)
Now pending before the Court is Greene‟s motion for reconsideration, which complains
the “court‟s ruling was improvidently based upon its construing an interpleader petition as a
„complaint‟ asserting „claims.‟”

(Mot. 1, ECF No. 16.)

What Greene filed is, in fact,

appropriately construed as a complaint since it is so labeled, since it purports to assert causes of
action of contract, replevin, and bad faith insurance claim, and since it asks the court to award
damages. However, it fails to include sufficient factual content to permit an inference of
wrongdoing by either USAA or the Government.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Greene‟s motion for reconsideration is
GRANTED, that the Court has reconsidered its ruling, and that the Court AFFIRMS its dismissal
of this case for failure to state a claim for relief. The Clerk SHALL SEND a copy of this
memorandum and order to Plaintiff.
DATED this 25th day of September, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

______________/s/____________________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2