Pitts v. Karmanos Cancer Center et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (NHol)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONNA PITTS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 11-12699

FRANCO ATTANASIO and
KARMANOS CANCER CENTER,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, Donna Pitts, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint naming Franco
Attanascio and Karmanos Cancer Center as defendants. Plaintiff has been granted
permission to proceed without payment of the filing fee. For the reasons which follow, the
Court shall dismiss the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim.
II. Legal Standard
The screening procedures established by § 1915 apply to cases filed by
non-prisoners and prisoners. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997).
Section 1915(e)(2) allows the Court to dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the
case is frivolous or malicious, that the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or seeks relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A
complaint "is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

The determination of failure to state a claim under § 1915 is the same as its
determination under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6). See 1 Moore's Fed. Practice § 4.41[3]. In
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the Supreme Court clarified the standard of
pleading necessary to survive a motion to dismiss. “Factual allegations must be enough
to raise a right to relief beyond the speculative level” and “more than labels and
conclusions” are required in order for a pleading to avoid dismissal. Id. at 1965.
The Court has a duty to construe a pro se plaintiff's pleadings liberally, see, e.g.,
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, (2007), but in doing so, it will not re-write a deficient
complaint or otherwise serve as counsel for that plaintiff. See GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of
Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). While leave to amend pleadings is
generally to be liberally given, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962); Fed R. Civ. P.
15(a), this is not true when the Court reviews a complaint under § 1915(e). See Hawkins
v. Morse, 194 F.3d 1312, at *1 (6th Cir.1999) (table opinion) (“The Court is not required to
allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint in order to avoid a sua sponte dismissal.”);
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds
by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
III. Analysis
The Court has read plaintiff’s complaint. From what can be gleaned, plaintiff is
attempting to assert a negligence claim on behalf of her deceased mother, who plaintiff
suggests was not given proper medical care.
Plaintiff’s complaint contains several references to proceedings in another court,
presumably state court. The proceedings appear to have been in the nature of medical
malpractice claim which was dismissed. Indeed, plaintiff asks the Court to “reverse the

2

order on summary disposition and let the case proceed to trial.” Attached to her
complaint is a portion of what appears to be a state court transcript. Plaintiff’s challenge
to actions taking place in state court is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under
this doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state
court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 & n. 16
(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). This is true even in the
face of allegations that "the state court's action was unconstitutional." Feldman, 460 U.S.
at 486; see also Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 233-34 (6th Cir.1996). Instead,
review of final determinations in state judicial proceedings can be obtained only in the
United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1257; Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476. To the
extent plaintiff is seeking federal court review of a state case, the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine precludes the exercise of federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff must instead utilize the
state-court appellate procedures.
Moreover, the complaint contains no allegations from which the Court can
determine the basis for subject matter jurisdiction or otherwise discern a discrete legal
claim. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED under §1915(e)(2). In light of this
disposition, the Court certifies that any appeal would also be frivolous. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).
SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2011

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Donna Pitts
14900 Southfield, Detroit, MI 48223 on this date, July 1, 2011, by electronic and/or
ordinary mail.
S/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

3