Barr v. Garcia

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT C. BARR, III,
Case No. 16-cv-13996
Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.
JUN GARCIA,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ANTHONY P. PATTI

Defendant.
/
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3)
Plaintiff, Robert C. Barr, III, filed a complaint on November 10, 2016
against his former physician, Dr. Jun Garcia. See Dkt. No. 1. Upon review of
Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court must dismiss this case because the Court lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The Court has a duty to construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Here, Plaintiff has filed a complaint
alleging that on March 24, 2014, his physician, Garcia, sent him a letter in which
Garcia discontinued their doctor-patient relationship as of October 24, 2014, due to
Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with his physician’s practice. Dkt. No. 1, p. 15 (Pg. ID
No. 15). Plaintiff alleges that this act constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation
and several state law claims, including “failure to disclose,” “unethical discharge
-1-

for filing a complaint,” “deformation [sic] of character,” and “personal injury.” Id.
at 5.
After construing Plaintiff’s pro se complaint liberally, the Court determines
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider this complaint. Federal courts
are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal district courts “possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial
decree[.]” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) requires this Court to
dismiss an action if, at any time, it determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over the action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff claims that the basis for jurisdiction is that the case presents a
federal question: a Fourth Amendment violation. Id. at 4. The Fourth Amendment
to the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and
seizures by state actors. “[A] wrongful search or seizure conducted by a private
party does not violate the Fourth Amendment[.]” Walter v. United States, 447 U.S.
649, 656 (1980). Accordingly, as there is no indication that Plaintiff’s private
physician could be considered a state actor, constrained by the Fourth Amendment,
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim must be dismissed with prejudice. As
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim was the sole basis upon which federal
question jurisdiction relied, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider
-2-

Plaintiff’s state law claims.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED pursuant to
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated:

November 17, 2016
/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys
of record on November 17, 2016, by electronic
and/or ordinary mail.
/s/Tanya R Bankston
Deputy Clerk

-3-