Emrit v. Laurel Regional Hospital
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/11/2017. (c/m 10/12/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.' ~. r"
LAUREL REGIONAL HOSPITAL
2011OCT I I P
RONALD SATISH EMRlT
Civil Action No. GJH-17-27l7
RONALD SAT1SH EMRIT
LAUREL REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Civil Action No. GJH-17-2763
cases are identical in claims asserted and the relief sought.
latter-filed complaint was transferred to this Court from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia on September 18,2017.
See Civil Action GJH-17-2763 at
The complaints are identical and the cases shall be consolidated for all purposes.
Because he appears to be indigent, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis shall be
granted. For the reasons stated below, the complaint must be dismissed and the consolidated
Plaintiff alleges that in May of2017, he "ended up" in Laurel Regional Hospital because
he was experiencing suicidal ideation and was taken there by Prince George's County Police.
ECF 1 at p. 3. He states that the social worker at Laurel Regional could not get him admitted to
a crisis center in Glen Burnie, Maryland as he had requested and, instead, had him admitted to a
crisis center in Hyattsville, Maryland, a city Plaintiff describes as "one of the most dangerous
cities in Prince George's County and Maryland in general." Jd. He states that the crisis center in
Glen Burnie would not accept his medical insurance.
Jd. He claims these events constitute a
"material breach of contract." Jd.
Plaintiff further alleges that the social worker at the Laurel Hospital was negligent
because when Plaintiff was discharged he asked the cab driver to take him to the White Flint
Mall, which had been demolished.
ECF I at p. 4. He asserts that the social worker should have
informed him that the mall had been demolished and, because he was not so informed, he "had to
wander the streets of Rockville, Md and Bethesda, Md" and "became confused, disheveled, and
suicidal again." Jd. Plaintiff states he had to call Montgomery County police to come pick him
up "because he was suicidal and confused (stemming from his disappointment that White Flint
Mall had been demolished and ...
he had nowhere to hang around and eat and sleep due to his
Jd. Plaintiff concludes that "Laurel Regional Hospital did not hold him long
enough to help [him] formulate cohesive thoughts and to come up with a gameplan for survival."
Jd. at p. 5. He seeks damages of $250,000. Jd. at pp. 5 - 6.
Plaintiff filed both complaints in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.c.
which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in this Court without prepaying the
filing fee. To guard against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires dismissal of any
claim that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). This Court is mindful, however, of its obligation to liberally
construe self-represented pleadings, such as the instant complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
In evaluating such a complaint, the factual allegations are assumed to be
Jd. at 93 (citing Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56
Nonetheless, liberal construction does not mean that this Court can ignore a clear failure in the
pleading to allege facts which set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.,
901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Beaudel1 v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th
Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may not "conjure up questions never squarely presented.").
making this determination,
"[t]he district court need not look beyond the complaint's allegations
[but] it must hold the pro se complaint to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by
attorneys and must read the complaint liberally." White v. White, 886 F. 2d 721, 722-723 (4th
Although a complaint need not contain detailed allegations, the facts alleged must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and require "more than labels and
conclusions," as "courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
The complaint must
contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. Once a
claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with
the allegations in the complaint. Id. at 561.
Further, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, shall
contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction,
court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support, (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for
the relief sought ....
Moreover, each "allegation must be simple, concise, and direct."
R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). "Threadbarc recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
The instant complaint does not comply with federal pleading requirements.
federal cause of action that arises under the facts as stated by Plaintiff.
There is no
There simply is no
federal law that requires hospital staff to secure admission to a crisis center of Plaintiffs choice,
or to advise him of where he should go when he leaves the facility.
It is well-settled law that
complaint allegations must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Here, there is no discernible claim or injury warranting a response
from the named Defendant.
Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the services provided does not state a
federal cause of action, nor does it raise even a suspicion that a viable cause of action has arisen
Accordingly, by separate Order which follows, the complaint shall be
dismissed and the consolidated cases closed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?