Sabin v. FAHC
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 3/26/2013. (law)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Robert A. Sabin,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
Fletcher Allen Health
Care,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:13-cv-18
OPINION AND ORDER
On January 25, 2013, pro se plaintiff Robert Sabin
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a
proposed Complaint.
Magistrate Judge Conroy reviewed
Sabin’s filings, and in an Order dated February 4, 2013,
found both to be insufficient.
Accordingly, the Magistrate
Judge allowed Sabin 30 days in which to: (1) either submit a
new in forma pauperis application or pay the $350 filing;
and (2) file a new Complaint.
The Magistrate Judge also
warned that failure to file a new Complaint might result in
dismissal of the case.
Over 30 days have passed since the Magistrate Judge’s
Order, and Sabin has not submitted anything further to the
Court.
Accordingly, and for reasons set forth below, this
case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Factual Background
In his proposed Complaint, Sabin alleges that Defendant
Fletcher Allen Health Care (“FAHC”) has “abused me and my
gover[n]ment for the last time.”
He claims that he has been
“unable to work,” and that he “had to go to FAHC 3 or 4
times to make sure when hav[]ing a hard time breathing at
home calling 911 to FAHC to talk to a doctor to get a[n] xray.”
These are the sole allegations against FAHC.
Sabin’s in forma pauperis application provides no
financial information aside from the fact that he is
unemployed.
Specifically omitted from the form is any
information about Sabin’s last date of employment; his
current source(s) of income; other assets; dependents; or
monthly expenses.
Discussion
Where a plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court must determine whether he has
demonstrated sufficient economic need to proceed without
prepaying, in full, the $350.00 filing fee.
In addition,
the Court must consider whether the causes of action stated
in the Complaint are, among other things, frivolous or
malicious, or if they fail to state a claim upon which
2
relief may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court first reviews Sabin’s financial information.
In considering the instant motion, the Court notes that the
in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), excuses from
prepayment of filing fees any person who submits an
affidavit “that the person is unable to pay such fees or
give security therefor.”
It is not necessary for a litigant
to show that he is “absolutely destitute” in order to obtain
the benefits of the statute.
Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).
It is instead
sufficient for the litigant to demonstrate that paying court
costs would deprive him of the “necessities of life.”
Id.;
see Potnick v. Eastern State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d
Cir. 1983).
Sabin’s affidavit does not demonstrate his alleged
poverty.
While his assertion of unemployment suggests the
possibility of poverty, the Court requires additional
information in order to determine whether paying the filing
fee would jeopardize his ability to provide himself and any
dependents with the “necessities of life.”
Id.
The Court
therefore agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s prior ruling,
and in light of Sabin’s failure to submit either an amended
3
affidavit or the filing fee, dismissal without prejudice is
warranted.
Furthermore, the proposed Complaint is insufficient.
While “a court is obliged to construe [pro se] pleadings
liberally,” McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d
Cir. 2004), those pleadings must still meet the notice
requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Fed
R. Civ. P. 8; Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2004).
“Specific facts are not necessary,” as the plaintiff “need
only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”
Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
In this case, it is not clear how FAHC caused Sabin
harm.
Although it appears that Sabin sought medical care at
FAHC, he has not provided sufficient facts to put FAHC on
notice of either the nature of his claims or the grounds for
such claims.
Furthermore, there is no suggestion of a
federal cause of action, as the allegations – even when
given the required liberal reading – suggest only the
possibility of a state law negligence claim.
4
Without a
federal cause of action, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
hear this case.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Generally, the Court will afford a pro se plaintiff an
opportunity to amend or be heard prior to dismissal “unless
the court can rule out any possibility, however unlikely it
might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating
a claim.”
Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (quoting Gomez
v. USAA Federal Savings Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 796 (2d Cir.
1999) (per curiam)).
In this case, the Magistrate Judge has
already provided Sabin with that opportunity in the form of
leave to file an Amended Complaint.
avail himself of that leave.
Sabin has failed to
He has also failed to either
supplement his in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the filing
fee.
In light of Sabin’s inaction, this case is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
Finally, the Court certifies that any appeal from this
Order would not be taken in good faith, as Sabin’s pleading
lacks any arguable basis in law or fact, and permission to
pursue an appeal of this Opinion and Order in forma pauperis
is denied.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Seimon v.
Emigrant Savs. Bank (In re Seimon), 421 F.3d 167, 169 (2d
Cir. 2005).
5
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this
26th day of March, 2013.
/s/ William K. Sessions III
William K. Sessions III
Judge, United States District Court
6
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?