Carter v. Riverside Methodist Hospital et al

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis & recommending that the 3 Complaint be dismissed as frivolous. Objections to R&R due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 12/19/2012. (kk2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Cardional Anna Vines Carter,
Plaintiff,

:
:

v.

:

Case No. 2:12-cv-1152

:
Riverside Methodist Hospital,
et al.,
:
Defendants.

JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Kemp

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Cardional Anna Vines Carter, a non-prisoner pro
se litigant, filed this action asking for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.

Ms. Carter qualifies financially for in forma

pauperis status, so her motion for leave to proceed (Doc. 1) is
granted.

However, the Court will recommend that the complaint be

dismissed as frivolous.
I.
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) provides that in proceedings in forma
pauperis, “[t]he court shall dismiss the case if ... (B) the
action ... is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim
on which relief can be granted....”

The purpose of this section

is to prevent suits which are a waste of judicial resources and
which a paying litigant would not initiate because of the costs
involved.

See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).

A

complaint may be dismissed as frivolous only when the plaintiff
fails to present a claim with an arguable or rational basis in
law or fact.

See id. at 325.

Claims which lack such a basis

include those for which the defendants are clearly entitled to
immunity and claims of infringement of a legal interest which
does not exist, see id. at 327-28, and “claims describing
fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal

district judges are all too familiar.”

Id. at 328; see also

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992).

A complaint may not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Pro se complaints are to be

construed liberally in favor of the pro se party.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

See Haines v.

The Court is required to review Ms.

Carter’s complaint under these standards.
II.
Ms. Carter’s complaint, like the one which she filed against
this same defendant in Case No. 2:12-cv-914, appears to relate to
something which happened while she was a patient at Riverside
Methodist Hospital, the named defendant.

According to the

complaint, while Ms. Carter was at the hospital, people kept
putting something (the complaint appears to allege “sakes”
although the Court is not sure what is meant by this) on her and
her bed, and did so again when she returned to the hospital for
another night.

She seeks the death penalty for “all involved”

and also eight trillion dollars in damages.
A fundamental problem with the complaint is its failure to
address the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction.
no federal-law based claim alleged.

There is simply

Absent a federal claim, the

other possible basis for jurisdiction would be diversity of
citizenship.

The relevant diversity jurisdiction statute, 28

U.S.C. §1332(a), says that a federal court can exercise
jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is between– (1) citizens of different
States ....”

In order for a civil action to be “between ...

citizens of different states” as that phrase is used in
§1332(a)(1), all of the plaintiffs must be citizens of a state or
-2-

states different from the state of citizenship of any of the
See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68

defendants.

(1996)(“The current general-diversity statute, permitting federal
district court jurisdiction over suits for more than $50,000 [now
$75,000] ‘between ... citizens of different States,’ 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)... applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each
plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”).
Riverside Methodist Hospital would appear to be a citizen of the
State of Ohio, as is Ms. Carter, so there is no diversity
jurisdiction.
In other cases filed by Ms. Carter, the Court has been very
liberal in granting her an opportunity to amend her complaint to
attempt either to state a cognizable claim or explain why the
Court has jurisdiction.

She has now filed eleven cases since

August 28 of this year.

Five have already been dismissed as

frivolous.

Three of them have named Riverside Methodist Hospital

as a defendant.

If Ms. Carter has a valid claim against that

defendant, she certainly would have been able to state it by now.
She has not.

Therefore, the Court recommends that this new case

be dismissed as frivolous, and that the Court consider whether to
impose filing restrictions on Ms. Carter for future cases.
III.
For all of these reasons, the motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (#1) is granted.

It is further recommended that

this case be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).

IV.
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file
and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,
-3-

together with supporting authority for the objection(s).

A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.

Upon proper

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,
may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the
right to have the district judge review the Report and
Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the
right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the
Report and Recommendation.

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

-4-