ANTONELLI v. KENNEDY HOSPITAL et al
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 1/16/18. (jbk, )
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
Danielle ANTONELLI,
Plaintiff,
v.
KENNEDY HOSPITAL and
Dr. Daniel WEEKS
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 17-13780 (RBK/KMW)
OPINION
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the complaint and application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 1) of Plaintiff Danielle Antonelli. Antonelli has alleged a violation of a criminal
statute, which is not cognizable in civil litigation. We dismiss.
I.
THE FACTS
Although the complaint is not clear, we hold pro se complaints to “less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and will
interpret the spirit if not the precise language of the complaint.
Antonelli’s complaint appears to refer to a visit at Kennedy Hospital at the direction of the
Glassboro Police, who sent her there perhaps because she was having, in her words, “a mental
breakdown.” Although unclear, the Court infers that this breakdown may have related to Antontelli
not being able to take her medication because she needed a refill. The hospital drew blood and
claimed Antonelli’s medications were in her system, and Antonelli argues they were not. She
seems to argue that Camden Urban Treatment—not a party to this case—falsified her urinalysis as
1
well. At some point it appears someone told Antonelli she was suffering from a seizure, and
Antonelli argues that she does not have a history of seizures. Antonelli has also submitted a variety
of other documents, including some letters by her that challenge no fewer than ten allegedly
erroneous parking tickets, but these are not germane to the issues before the Court today.
Antonelli seeks $150,000 in damages for falsification of a medical record under N.J. Stat.
Ann. 2C:21-4-1 and 18 U.S.C. § 1519.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
District courts must review complaints in civil actions in which a litigant is proceeding in
forma pauperis and must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Pro se complaints must be construed
liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss an action for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, “courts
accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may
be entitled to relief.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting
Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). A complaint survives a motion to
dismiss if it contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). It is not for courts
to decide at this point whether the non-moving party will succeed on the merits, but “whether they
should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims.” In re Rockefeller
Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir. 2002). While “detailed factual allegations”
2
are not necessary, a “plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations omitted); see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009).
III.
DISCUSSION
Antonelli has pleaded a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, a federal criminal statute that does
not confer a private right of action. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001); Bratset v.
Davis Joint Unified School District, 2017 WL 6484308, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2017) (“18
U.S.C. § 1519 is a federal criminal statute that does not provide a private right of action”); Jung v.
Bank of Am., N.A., 2016 WL 5929273, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2016) (analyzing criminal statutes
with similar language and finding no private right of action and citing cases). Antonelli has thus
failed to state a claim because there is simply no claim to bring under this statute.
Because there is no diversity between the parties, the remaining claim under N.J. Stat. Ann.
2C:21-4.1 can only fall within this Court’s discretionary supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367. The Court will exercise its discretion and dismiss the claim.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Antonelli’s complaint is DISMISSED. An order follows.
Dated:
01/16/2018
/s Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
3
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?