Brown v. Haniff et al
Filing
3
Memorandum of Opinion and Order. This action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 9/14/2015. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
MARQUE D. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
IMRAAN N. HANIFF, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1063
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On May 27, 2015, Plaintiff pro se Marque D. Brown filed this in forma pauperis action
against Defendants Imraan N. Haniff and Darlene Spahr. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that
Defendants provided treatment to a 17 year-old female, Taisha Ramirez, at the Ashtabula County
Medical Center Emergency Department, after she was injured in a domestic assault in the early
morning of May 25, 2014. An attachment to the Complaint reflects her injuries came at the hands
of Plaintiff, and that Ms. Ramirez, who was eight months pregnant, died from the injuries after
returning to the emergency room later that morning. Plaintiff asserts medical negligence.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam), the district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if
it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010).
1
An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the
plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that
it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim
for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith,
507 F.3d 910, 915 (6th Cir. 2007); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir.
1990); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986).
Even construing the Complaint liberally, there is no suggestion of any possible basis for this
Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not invoke a federal statute in support of his claim, and diversity
of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants does not exist.
This action is therefore
appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Lowe v. Huffstutler, No. 89-5996, 1990 WL 66822
(6th Cir. May 21, 1990). Further, to the extent Plaintiff may be seeking to assert rights on behalf
of others, he may not do so, as there is no indication he is an attorney. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654
("parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel”).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: September 14, 2015
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?