HOLLIDAY v. PRIME CARE MEDICAL et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 2/16/21. 2/16/21 ENTERED. NOT MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF. (fdc)
Case 5:21-cv-00314-CMR Document 5 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PRIME CARE MEDICAL, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-CV-0314
FEBRUARY 16, 2021
Plaintiff Michael Holliday, proceeding pro se has filed a Complaint (ECF No. 2). For the
following reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
Holliday, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Berks County Jail (“BCJ”), brings this
action seeking raise “professional liability” claims against Prime Care Medical, a provider of
medical services to inmate at BCJ, and against Dr. Kenneth Wlocheski and Nurse Leona,
employees of Prime Care Medical who treat inmates at BCJ. (ECF No. 2 at 1, 4-5.) 1 Holliday’s
professional liability claims relate to two alleged instances where he asserts that Defendant
Nurse Leona negligently administered doses of methadone to Holliday which were meant for
two other inmates and were far greater than the doses that Holliday actually needed to receive.
(Id. at 1-4.) Holliday claims that he has suffered complications as a result of these incorrect
methadone doses, including a seizure, a mild stroke, or “stroke like” symptoms, which have
continued to this time and have not been properly addressed. (Id.) He alleges that his
The Court adopts the pagination assigned to the Complaint by the CM/ECF docketing system.
Case 5:21-cv-00314-CMR Document 5 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 6
complaints about his symptoms, including slurred speech, and awkward gait, numbness in his
face, and facial sagging, have gone “mostly ignored” and he has not received an MRI or a CAT
scan to determine the extent of his injuries. (Id. at 2-4.) As part of his Complaint, Holliday
attached a “Certificate of Merit” against Defendants which purports to “certify” that these
Defendants “deviated from an acceptable professional standard” of care in the treatment of
Holliday. (Id. at 7.) In support of his Certificate of Merit, Holliday attaches multiple prisoner
grievance forms he submitted to prison officials at the BCJ regarding these incorrect methadone
doses and his symptoms. (Id. at 11-17.)
Based on his allegations of medical negligence, Holliday seeks $100,000 in medical
expenses, $50,000 for lost earnings, $1,000,000 for pain and suffering, a “lump sum” payment of
$2,000,000, and $3,000,000 in future pain and suffering, in addition to an MRI and a CAT scan
to determine the extent of his injuries with additional follow-up as necessary. (Id. at 10.)
HOLLIDAY’S RELATED CIVIL ACTION
Before filing this complaint asserting legal claims based on a theory of professional
liability, or medical negligence, related to these incorrect methadone doses, Holliday filed a
separate civil action against these Defendants and others asserting claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Holliday v. PrimeCare Medical, et al., No. 19-4564 (ECF No. 16) (“Holliday I”).
In Holliday I, Holliday brought claims against Prime Care Medical, Dr. Kenneth Wloczewski 2,
and Nurse Leona, among others, under a different legal theory – alleging that these Defendants
violated his Eighth Amendment rights and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs arising from the same set of facts related to the two incorrect methadone doses Nurse
In Holliday I, Holliday spelled the last name of this Defendant as Wloczewski whereas in this
matter he spelled it Wlocheski.
Case 5:21-cv-00314-CMR Document 5 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 6
Leona administered to him. By Memorandum and Order dated January 25, 2021, this Court
screened Holliday’s Amended Complaint in Holliday I and determined that the Amended
Complaint in that action failed to state a plausible claim for relief against PrimeCare Medical or
Nurse Leona for deliberate indifference under § 1983 related to the methadone dosing issue.
(See Memorandum, ECF No. 20 in Holliday I, at 19, n.13 and 24.) Unlike Nurse Leona,
however, the Court permitted Holliday’s deliberate indifference claim against Wlocheski to
proceed. (Id. at 18-19.) By separate Order also entered on January 25, 2021, the Court directed
Holliday to notify the Court in writing if he requests that the Court refer his case for possible
appointment of counsel. (See ECF No. 22.)
The Complaint in the present action ( “Holliday II”), is dated December 29, 2020,
postmarked January 11, 2021, and was docketed by the Clerk of Court on January 19, 2021. The
Memorandum and Orders in Holliday I were docketed on January 25, 2021 and mailed out to
Holliday on January 26, 2021, after he submitted the Complaint and Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis in Holliday II. Accordingly, Holliday could not have been aware of the fact that
his deliberate indifference claims against Wlocheski and others were proceeding at the time he
initiated this new action, Holliday II – which arises from the same set of facts but asserts a
different legal theory.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court must dismiss the Complaint if it fails to
state a claim. To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the 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). Furthermore, “[i]f the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
Case 5:21-cv-00314-CMR Document 5 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 6
action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). As Holliday is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his
allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Holliday’s professional liability claims
for medical negligence, which arise under state law. The only independent basis for jurisdiction
over such claims is 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 3 which states that a district court can exercise subjectmatter jurisdiction over a case 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.”
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Section 1332(a) requires “‘complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all
defendants,’ even though only minimal diversity is constitutionally required. This means that,
unless there is some other basis for jurisdiction, ‘no plaintiff [may] be a citizen of the same state
as any defendant.’” Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2015)
(quoting Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005) and Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v.
Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal footnotes omitted)). An individual is a citizen
of the state where he is domiciled, meaning the state where he is physically present and intends
to remain. See Washington v. Hovensa LLC, 652 F.3d 340, 344 (3d Cir. 2011). “[T]he domicile
of a prisoner before his imprisonment presumptively remains his domicile during his
imprisonment.” Pierro v. Kugel, 386 F. App’x 308, 309 (3d Cir. 2010). “A corporation is a
citizen both of the state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of
business. . . . And a partnership, as an unincorporated entity, takes on the citizenship of each of
The Court’s review of Holliday’s Complaint provides no factual basis to support the exercise of
federal question jurisdiction over his claims. Rather, it is clear from the manner in which the
Complaint is pled that Holliday is only raising claims under state law. It is also clear that, to the
extent Holliday intended to raise civil rights claims based on these events, he is pursuing those
claims in Holliday I.
Case 5:21-cv-00314-CMR Document 5 Filed 02/16/21 Page 5 of 6
its partners.” Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 419 (citations omitted). “The burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction rests with the party asserting its existence.” Lincoln Ben. Life Co., 800 F.3d at 105
(citing DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006)).
Here, Holliday makes no allegations regarding the citizenship of any of the parties. The
Complaint is silent with regard to Holliday’s own citizenship. With respect to the individual
Defendants, Holliday only alleges that both Wlocheski and Leona are licensed professionals with
offices in Berks County, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 2 at 5.) With respect to Prime Care Medical,
he asserts that it is “[a] corporation or similar entity . . . with offices located throughout the State
of Pennsylvania, but headquartered at 3940 Locust Ave. Harrisburg, PA[.]” (Id. at 6.) These
allegations are insufficient based on the requirements for pleading citizenship set forth above.
Accordingly, Holliday has not met his burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction over his
claim against these Defendants. Therefore, Holliday’s state law professional liability claims for
medical malpractice will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“[A] court should ordinarily allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint to properly allege
the parties’ citizenship.” Pierro, 386 F. App’x at 310. However, although the Complaint in this
case is more narrowly pled, a comparison of the Complaint in Holliday II to the Amended
Complaint in Holliday I suggests that Holliday II is based on a series of factual allegations and
events that were already reviewed by the Court and permitted to proceed with respect to the
incorrect methadone doses Holliday received. A plaintiff has “no right to maintain two separate
actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the
same defendant.” Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc).
Accordingly, to the extent Holliday’s allegations in Holliday II are duplicative of the allegations
in Holliday I, his claims are dismissed without prejudice to him proceeding in Holliday I rather
Case 5:21-cv-00314-CMR Document 5 Filed 02/16/21 Page 6 of 6
than without prejudice to him amending here. To the extent Holliday decides to pursue
additional state law claims for medical malpractice in Holliday I, he must move to amend in that
case in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 4 In the alternative, Holliday could
file the state-law claims in the appropriate state court. Because Holliday already brought suit in
Holliday I, and may have intended to pursue his claims in that case as the state-law claims cannot
proceed in this Court in a separate action, the Court will dismiss as moot the motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. See Brown v. Sage, 941 F.3d 655 (3d Cir. 2019).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction without prejudice to Holliday filing a motion to bring the state-law claims in
Holliday I or to filing an action in the appropriate state court. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe
CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
“In general, an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading and renders the original
pleading a nullity.” Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 82 (3d Cir. 2019). “Thus, the most
recently filed amended complaint becomes the operative pleading.” Id. Furthermore, “liberal
construction of a pro se amended complaint does not mean accumulating allegations from
superseded pleadings.” Argentina v. Gillette, No. 19-1348, 2019 WL 2538020, at *1 n.3 (3d Cir.
June 20, 2019). “Therefore, as a practical matter, the filing of amended and supplemental
complaints effectively constitutes an abandonment of any prior complaints filed by a plaintiff.”
Smith v. Price, Civ. A. No. 11-1581, 2012 WL 1068159, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2012), report
and recommendation adopted, Civ. A. No. 11-1581, 2012 WL 1072282 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 29,
2012). This means that if Holliday files a motion to amend in Holliday I in accordance with
Rule 15 seeking to file a second amended complaint in Holliday I and if that second amended
complaint omits any of the claims upon which he was previously permitted to proceed by the
Court, he will be abandoning those claims.
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?