Pierson v. St. John Medical Center - Broken Arrow et al

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan - that plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. # 1) is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Re: 1 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

KENNETH PIERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. JOHN MEDICAL CENTERBROKEN ARROW, LAW OFFICES
OF WORKS & LENTZ, INC, and HARRY
A. LENTZ, JR,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-CV-0512-CVE-TLW

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court sua sponte on a complaint (Dkt. # 1) filed by plaintiff.
The Court addresses plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte because “[f]ederal courts ‘have an independent
obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge
from any party,’ and thus a court may sua sponte raise the question of whether there is subject matter
jurisdiction ‘at any stage in the litigation.’” See 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co.,
459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006));
see also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
In this case, plaintiff is proceeding pro se and, consistent with Supreme Court and Tenth
Circuit precedent, the Court will construe his pro se pleadings liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972); Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff asserts twentyseven causes of action against defendants, including “constitutional violations under 42 U.S. Code
§ 1981” and various state-law causes of action. Dkt. # 1, at 2. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to stem

from a collection attempt on an outstanding medical bill. See Dkt. # 1, at 3. Attached to plaintiff’s
complaint is a letter plaintiff received from the law firm of Works & Lentz, signed by Harry Lentz,
attempting to collect an outstanding balance of $869.02 on behalf of St. John Medical CenterBroken Arrow. Id. Plaintiff thereafter filed his complaint, asserting that St. John Medical CenterBroken Arrow violated his rights by cancelling a scheduled colonoscopy. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff’s
complaint provides a detailed account of his medical issues requiring him to undergo a colonoscopy,
his preparation for his colonoscopy, and the last-minute cancellation after hospital officials
discovered that plaintiff intended to take a cab home from the hospital. Id.
Plaintiff purports to assert claims under the United States Constitution, thus giving this Court
jurisdiction over his constitutional claims and supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.
But, even construing plaintiff’s complaint liberally, it cannot be read to assert a constitutional
violation. Although plaintiff complains that his cancelled colonoscopy violated his free will and
resulted in a fraudulent bill for a medical procedure he did not receive, none of this can state a
§ 1981 claim. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of private
contracts. CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (2008). Plaintiff simply fails to allege
racial discrimination related to a contract, or otherwise allege any violation of a federal law.
Plaintiff instead challenges the validity of a collection action and a hospital’s decision to cancel a
medical procedure. Because the complaint does not allege any constitutional violation or other
violation of federal law, plaintiff has no claim over which this Court has jurisdiction. Regardless
of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court cannot permit plaintiff to proceed with the lawsuit when the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 1) is dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate judgment of dismissal is entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #
2) is granted and he does not owe the filing fee.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2016.

3