YOUNG v. ROSE et al
MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 9/26/2017. 9/26/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(amas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MRS. ROSE, et al.,
Plaintiff Kevin Young brings this action against "Mrs. Rose" and Pretty Nails Company,
LLC. He seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss
the complaint without prejudice to plaintiff refiling his claims in state court.
Plaintiff alleges that, on either August 25, 2017 or August 26, 2017, he paid for a pedicure at
Pretty Nails Company that was performed by Mrs. Rose. According to the complaint and
attachments to the complaint, while Mrs. Rose was cleaning the toenails on his left foot she used
a sharp pointed item that dug into the cuticle on his fourth left toe, causing sharp pain and
bleeding. The plaintiff sought medical care after the toenail began to tum black, required
medication to treat the injury, and sought additional follow-up medical treatment. Based on
those facts, plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against Mrs. Rose and Pretty Nails. He seeks $150,000
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 if it fails to state a
claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the
same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to
determine whether the complaint contains "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 proceeding prose, the Court must construe his allegations
liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). Furthermore, "[i]f 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).
There is no basis for a federal claim apparent from the complaint. 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." Here, it appears from the complaint that the parties are
not diverse. Accordingly, there is no basis for jurisdiction over any potential state law claims. If
plaintiff seeks to pursue those claims, he must proceed in state court.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaint without prejudice to
him refiling his claims in state court. 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.
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?