Lindsay v. Rusk State Hospital

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED and the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plai ntiff is SANCTIONED in the amount of $100.00. The sanction is independent of any sanction imposed in any other case. The Clerk is directed not to accept any new filings from Courtland Lindsay until any and all monetary sanctions have been paid in full. Any motion not previously ruled on is DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 09/24/14. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
COURTLAND LINDSAY

v.
RUSK STATE HOSPITAL

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv640

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this case has been presented for
consideration. The Report and Recommendation (docket no. 5) recommends that Plaintiff’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), and that Plaintiff be sanctioned in the
amount of $100.00, such that the Clerk shall not accept any new filings from Courtland Lindsay
until the sanction has been paid in full. Plaintiff did not file written objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Instead, he filed a Jury Demand (docket no. 7), an Amended Complaint
(docket no. 8), a Motion to Notify (docket no. 9), a Motion for Reconsideration of NonDispositive Motions (docket no. 10), a Motion for Injunctive Relief (docket no. 12) and a Motion
to Notify and Represent [sic] Federal Questions (docket no. 13). The Court considers these
pleadings together as Plaintiff’s written objections.

Having made a de novo review of the written objections filed by Plaintiff, the Court
concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the
objections are without merit. Plaintiff’s vexatious litigation practices, fully outlined in the
Report and Recommendation, cannot be condoned.

Plaintiff’s written objections do not

contradict the findings in the Report and Recommendation. At best, Plaintiff attempts to assert
new, vague allegations that were not included in the Complaint. Plaintiff now states that he is
asserting claims for libel, defamation and negligence. Plaintiff does not provide specific facts in
support of these claims. Moreover, Plaintiff does not explain why he is filing these state law
claims in federal court, as opposed to state court.

Federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction. Assuming, arguendo, that Rusk State Hospital is a state actor that may be sued
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff’s claim of negligence is not cognizable. See, e.g., Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S.Ct. 327 (1986).

Similarly, Plaintiff’s claims of libel and

defamation, which Plaintiff states concerns information contained in his private health records,
do not state a § 1983 claim. See Thomas v. Kippermann, 846 F.2d 1009, 1010 (5th Cir. 1988).
“More must be involved than defamation to establish a § 1983 claim under the fourteenth
amendment.” Id. (citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155 (1976)).
In light of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED and the
Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and (6).
Plaintiff is SANCTIONED in the amount of $100.00. The sanction is independent of any
sanction imposed in any other case. The Clerk is directed not to accept any new filings from
Courtland Lindsay until any and all monetary sanctions have been paid in full.

2

Any motion not previously ruled on is DENIED.
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of September, 2014.

3