HARRIS v. DANIELS et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 10/25/17. 10/25/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CLAUDE HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. MICHEAL A. DANIELS,
TEMPLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 17-4664

MEMORANDUM
Goldberg, J.

October 25, 2017

Plaintiff Claude Harris brings this action against Defendants Micheal A. Daniels and
Temple Hospital. 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.
I.

FACTS
Plaintiff alleges that on November 11, 2015, he underwent a prostate examination

performed by Daniels at Temple Hospital. (Compl. 4, 6.) Plaintiff contends that he “sustained
cancer” from this examination. (Id. at 4.) He alleges that his testicles were X-rayed “for about 45
minutes which caused [his] foreskin on [his] penis to contact, which now require[s] [him] to be
circumcised.” (Id.) Plaintiff hopes that “these problems can be treated with the help of natural
remedies and herbal doctors that [he] wants these defendants to provide, if not a well
experienced doctor in this area of medicine may be needed.” (Id.)
Based on those facts, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against Daniels and the Temple
Hospital. He alleges that Defendants are liable for “aggravated emotional distress, interference in
sexual performance and for [Plaintiff] becoming sterile from Temple’s examination.” (Compl.
4). He also contends that Defendants are liable for “civil rights issues” for “violating [his] body

[and causing] illness and disease without [his] permission.” (Id. at 2.) He seeks damages for pain
and suffering and emotional distress, and payment for any medicines that may be required for his
recovery.
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. However, a court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis “at any time” if it fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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 pro se, 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).
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asserts that he has brought his complaint pursuant to this Court’s federal

question jurisdiction. (Compl. 2.) He contends that Defendants are liable for “civil rights issues”
for “violating [his] body [and causing] illness and disease without [his] permission.” (Id.) Mr.
Harris’s alleged federal claims, however, are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Shapiro v.
McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450, 455 (2015). Plaintiff’s vague reference to “civil rights issues” does
not create a federal question. None of his claims arise “[u]nder the Constitution, laws, or treaties

of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Plaintiff does not seek a remedy granted by the
Constitution or federal law. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a federal question under
§ 1331.
Because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a federal question, 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.” But
“[t]he party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof” that these requirements are
met. McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Tr., 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006). Here, Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails to set forth a sum certain that he is requesting in damages. Nor does the
Complaint establish that the parties are diverse. Accordingly, there is no basis for jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s state law claims. If he seeks to pursue those claims, he must proceed in state
court.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s 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.