Cook v. Sinai Grace Hospital

Filing 5

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 21 DAYS re 1 Complaint filed by Mary Lenise Cook. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARY LENISE COOK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Case No. 13-14951
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

SINAI GRACE HOSPITAL
REGISTRATION/MEDICAL
RECORDS DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF
TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed this pro se action against Defendant on December 4, 2013.
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set forth a
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction
depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief sought. A complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, that when accepted as true, “‘state[s] a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 555, 570, 127

S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads
factual content that permits a court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable
for the alleged misconduct. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S. Ct. at
1965).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) also requires that a party pleading fraud
must do so with particularity. To satisfy this requirement, the Sixth Circuit
“requir[es] a plaintiff, at a minimum, ‘to allege the time, place, and content of the
alleged misrepresentation on which he or she relied; the fraudulent scheme; the
fraudulent intent of the defendants; and the injury resulting from the fraud.’”
Coffey v. Foamex L.P., 2 F.3d 157, 161–62 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Ballan v.
Upjohn Co., 814 F. Supp. 1375, 1385 (W.D. Mich.1992)).
Generally, a less stringent standard is applied when construing the
allegations pleaded in a pro se complaint. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21,
92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972). Even when held to a less stringent standard, however,
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 or 9.
Plaintiff’s statement attached to her Complaint is difficult to decipher. She
begins by stating that someone, perhaps one of Defendant’s employees, released
fraudulent information to the Social Security Administration. (ECF No. 1 at 5.)
She also cites to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729. However, she does not
2

appear to identify anywhere what fraudulent information was shared, when it was
shared, or what injury was caused by the alleged misconduct. Further, to the extent
she is attempting to bring a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, she cannot
do so pro se. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir.
2004).
For these reasons, within twenty one (21) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall
file an amended complaint in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8
and 9 or this action will be dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Date: December 12, 2013

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copy to:
Mary Lenise Cook
3240 W. Boston #103B
Detroit, MI 48206

3