DeBruhl v. Mission Health Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 5 "Motion for Law to Be Followed to Reinstate Case", which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/30/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)

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 “Motion for Law to
Be Followed to Reinstate Case,” which the Court construes as a motion for
reconsideration. [Doc. 5].
The Plaintiff filed this action on December 22, 2016, asserting 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. [Doc. 1 at
1, 3]. On January 12, 2017, the Court dismissed the action as frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). [Doc. 3].
The Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of that Order. In his pleading,
which is inartfully drafted, the Plaintiff appears to argue that he was subjected
to an involuntary hospitalization and was treated with medication against his
consent in violation of law. The Plaintiff fails to assert, however, any basis
for the exercise of federal jurisdiction in this case. As the Court previously
noted, Mission Hospital is not a state actor for the purposes of § 1983. See
S.P. v. City of Takoma Park, 134 F.3d 260, 269 (4th Cir. 1998). To the extent
that the Plaintiff asserts claims of medical malpractice, such claims would
arise under state law and the Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for the
Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction in this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332
(requiring action between citizens of different states and an amount in
controversy in excess of $75,000). Finally, to the extent that the Plaintiff
seeks to challenge or collaterally attack an involuntary commitment
proceeding1, such matters are for the North Carolina state courts.
In summary, Plaintiff’s action was dismissed not because he stated no
claim, but because he did not state a basis for a claim that can be brought in

1

The Plaintiff does not allege in his original Complaint that he was subjected to an
involuntary commitment [see Doc. 1]; if he had been, however, an involuntary
commitment order would have issued from a North Carolina state court.
2

Federal Court.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s “Motion for Law to
Be Followed to Reinstate Case” [Doc. 5], which the Court construes as a
motion for reconsideration, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 30, 2017

3