SEAFORD v. FRIENDS HOSPITAL

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND HIS COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE COURT'S MEMORANDUM; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 7/31/17. 8/1/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(jl, )

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAMONT KAREEM SEAFORD

CIVIL ACTION

FILED

v.
FRIENDS HOSPITAL

2017

NO. 17-3367
MEMORANDUM

SLOMSKY,J.

'2017

Plaintiff Lamont Kareem Seaford brings this civil rights action against Friends Hospital
based on allegations that he was hit on the head in 2015. He seeks to proceed informa pauperis.
For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint.
I.

FACTS

Plaintiff alleges that, at some point between July 28, 2015 and August 31, 2015, he was
punched in the back of the head and neck in the cafeteria at Friends Hospital. He believes it was
a staff member who punched him. Accordingly, he initiated this lawsuit against the hospital,
claiming violations of his civil rights and seeking $200,000 in damages.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is unable to
pay the costs of filing suit. As plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires the Court to dismiss the complaint ifit fails to state a
claim. To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quotations omitted). As plaintiff is proceedingpro se, the Court must construe his
allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). Furthermore, "[i]f

1

the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss
the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

III.

DISCUSSION

"To state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988). Here, the defendant is not a state actor and nothing suggests that plaintiffs
constitutional rights were violated. Accordingly, there is no basis for a civil rights claims here.
To the extent plaintiff is raising claims under state law, the only possible independent basis
for subject matter jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), which grants district courts jurisdiction
over a case in which "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs, and is between ... citizens of different States." As it appears that the
parties are not diverse, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any state claims.

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff will not be
given leave to file an amended complaint because he cannot cure the defects noted above. See

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). An appropriate order
follows.

,...,, ...... f

--

2

. ,,

/!
\

._,