DeBruhl v. Mission Health Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 3

ORDER granting 2 MOTION to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs(Sealed - Participants). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/12/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(emw)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00405-MR-DLH

TRACEY N. DeBRUHL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
MISSION HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
)
MISSION HEALTH, INC., MISSION)
ST. JOSEPH’S HEALTH SYSTEM,
)
INC., MEMORIAL MISSION MEDICAL )
CENTER, INC., MEMORIAL MISSION )
MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION,
)
INC., and COPESTONE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [Doc. 2]. The
Court will grant the Plaintiff’s Application [Doc. 2] but will sua sponte dismiss
the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Because the Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, seeks to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Court must examine the pleadings to determine whether
this Court has jurisdiction and to ensure that the action is not frivolous or
malicious and states a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); see also Michau v. Charleston County,
S.C., 434 F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting that § 1915(e) “governs IFP
filings in addition to complaints filed by prisoners”). A complaint is deemed
frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The
Fourth Circuit has offered the following guidance to a court tasked with
determining whether a complaint is frivolous under § 1915(e):
The district court need not look beyond the
complaint’s allegations in making such a
determination. It must, however, hold the pro se
complaint to less stringent standards than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and must read the complaint
liberally. Trial courts, however, are granted broad
discretion in determining whether a suit is frivolous or
malicious.
White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722-23 (4th Cir. 1989). While the complaint
must be construed liberally, the Court may “pierce the veil of the complaint's
factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
clearly baseless,” including such claims that describe “fantastic or delusional
scenarios.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 328, 109 S.Ct. 827.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]
pleading states a claim for relief must contain (1) a short and plain statement
of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction ... [and] (2) a short and plain
2

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). A complaint fails to state a claim where it offers merely
“labels and conclusions,” “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action,” or “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.”
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557, 127 S.Ct.
1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Here, the Plaintiff appears to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983
and 1985 against Mission Health System, Inc. and related defendants
(collectively, “Mission Hospital”) for injuries the Plaintiff allegedly sustained
as a result of his arrest by four police officers.1 [Doc. 1 at 1, 3]. With respect
to Mission Hospital specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Mission Hospital
“den[ied] evidence” of his injuries. [Id. at 4]. In his request for relief, the
Plaintiff states, in pertinent part, as follows:
Due to Defendants abuse and misjustice to the law,
Plaintiff’s injuries progressed and weren’t dealt with
immediately. Due to the crime Defendant committed
Plaintiffs cannot trust Doctors. The proof Mission
Hospital stated they would take along with denying
and lying to Plaintiff’s POA, stole the proof Federal
1

The pro se Plaintiff has brought a separate civil action against the Buncombe County
Sheriff’s Department and various individual officers, asserting claims under § 1983 for
injuries arising from the same incident. See Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00404-MR-DSC
(W.D.N.C.).
3

agent needed. . . . Federal agents said to be sure to
tell courts that the attackers wife/wives work for
Mission Hospital where Plaintiff was held until
bruises/evidence went away. This is supposed to a
conflict of their law? Due to the abuse Plaintiff has
Traumatic Brain Injury and/or PTSD.
[Id. at 6-7 (grammatical errors in original)].
In an untitled addendum to his Complaint, the Plaintiff further alleges,
in pertinent part, that:
Mission Hospital Doctors denied Plaintiff, Plaintiffs
Power of Attorney, & the evidence needed by the FBI
to charge the officers for their crimes. Which can be
proven along with Mission Hospital showing force
medication was criminal administered to the plaintiff
against all requests. FORCED MEDICINE CAN NOT
BE ADMINISTERED WITH AN OBSERVATION
TIME.
[Id. at 8 (grammatical errors in original)].
The Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. As the Fourth Circuit has explained:
To implicate 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conduct must be fairly
attributable to the State. The person charged must
either be a state actor or have a sufficiently close
relationship with state actors such that a court would
conclude that the non-state actor is engaged in the
state’s actions. Thus, the Supreme Court has held
that private activity will generally not be deemed
“state action” unless the state has so dominated such
activity as to convert it into state action: [m]ere
approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives of a
private party is insufficient.
4

DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 506-07 (4th Cir. 1999) internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). Here, the Plaintiff has not brought suit against
a state actor; instead, he has attempted to sue Mission Hospital, a private
corporation. The Plaintiff has made no allegation that Mission Hospital a
sufficiently close relationship with state actors such that the Court could
conclude that the Hospital was engaged in governmental action. As such,
the Plaintiff has no basis to assert a § 1983 claim in this case. Further,
although private actors can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, see Traggis v.
St. Barbara’s Greek Orthodox Church, 851 F.2d 584, 586-87 (2d Cir. 1988),
the Plaintiff has failed to assert factual allegations sufficient to support such
a conspiracy claim, see Leon v. Murphy, 988 F.2d 303, 311 (2d Cir. 1993).
Thus, to the extent that the Plaintiff attempts to assert claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, such claims must be dismissed.2
Upon review of the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court
without Prepaying Fees or Costs, the Court finds that the Application should
be allowed. The Court concludes, however, that the allegations set forth in
the Plaintiff’s Complaint are frivolous and fail to state a cognizable claim upon

2

To the extent that the Plaintiff attempts to assert some claims other than ones under §
1983 or § 1985, the Plaintiff’s allegations are frivolous and nonsensical and fail to state a
cognizable claim upon relief may be granted.
5

which relief may be granted. When a Court determines upon a § 1915(e)
review that a complaint is factually or legally baseless, the Court must
dismiss the case. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d
338 (1989); White, 886 F.2d at 724. It is the intent of Congress that such
dismissals occur prior to service of the complaint on defendants. Cochran v.
Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996). As such, the Court will dismiss
this civil action.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [Doc. 2] is
ALLOWED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: January 12, 2017

6