Petros v. St. Francis Hospital et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

HARRY STEVEN PETROS,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-175
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner. He filed this case using the Court’s form for pro se civil rights
actions under Section 1983, but he is not complaining about any prison condition, or about anything
that happened in prison at all. Rather, he is complaining about a pre-custody accident at his place
of work, and then a series of botched surgeries. The normal screening mechanisms of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA) do no apply by their
terms. 28 U.S.C. § 915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). However, the Court still cannot proceed in the
absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court must still dismiss the case, if
appropriate, under the normal provisions applicable to all IFP parties, prisoners or not. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). Here, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and will dismiss the case accordingly.
Discussion
I.

Factual allegations

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at
the Central Michigan Correctional Facility (STF) in St. Louis, Gratiot County, Michigan. The events

about which he complains, however, occurred prior to Plaintiff’s incarceration. Plaintiff sues St.
Francis Hospital and Dr. Ralph B. Blasier, M.D. Plaintiff alleges that prior to his incarceration, he
had a series of failed knee surgeries at St. Francis Hospital, which were performed by Defendant
Blasier. As a result of these surgeries, Plaintiff continues to suffer damage to his knee, which will
require additional corrective surgery. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well
as injunctive relief.
II.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Plaintiff makes no assertion of any federal basis for relief. He seems simply to have used a
court form normally used by pro se litigants suing under Section 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint does
not invoke Section 1983, and could not because Plaintiff was not a prisoner when the cause of action
arose and Plaintiff does not claim any defendant was a state actor at the time.
Plaintiff’s potential claims arise solely under state law. The Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over these claims because Plaintiff has not asserted and established diversity of
citizenship. Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of Michigan, and so the Court does not have
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, his
complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff may pursue his
claims in state court.
Conclusion
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a federal claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). A judgment consistent with this
opinion will issue.

The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir.
1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith
basis for an appeal.

Date:

April 4, 2018

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE