Loney v. Biddle

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 08/05/2014. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (walk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

KIRK LONEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-00483-JAG

MATHEW BIDDLE,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis filed by the pro se plaintiff, Kirk Loney. (Dk. No. 3.) Upon due consideration, the
Court finds Loney unable to pay the costs of proceeding in the instant case. Accordingly, the
Court hereby GRANTS Loney's motion to proceed informa pauperis and DIRECTS the clerk to
docket the complaint.
Loney's complaint, however, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and

must be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Rule

8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a claim for relief contain "a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). While courts should liberally construe pro se complaints, see Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), "[principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints

are not... without limits." Beaudett v. City ofHampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

The court need not attempt "to discern the unexpressed intent of the plaintiff." Laber v. Harvey,
438 F.3d 404, 413 n.3 (4th Cir. 2006). The Fourth Circuit has stated: "[t]hough [pro se] litigants

cannot, of course, be expected to frame legal issues with the clarity and precision ideally evident

in the work of those trained in the law, neither can district courts be required to conjure up and

decide issues never fairly presented to them." Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1276. In other words,
"[district judges are not mind readers." Id at 1278. Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
provides that this Court "shall dismiss" an action filed informa pauperis "at any time if the court
determines" that the action "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Upon review of Loney's complaint, the Court must dismiss this action for failure to state
a claim. Loney brings several claims against the defendant, Mathew Biddle, an employee of
Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, in his individual capacity. Loney's claims
consist of:

fraudulent concealment of an action; deprivation of a right to receive a continuity
in medical treatment, denial of the right to receive medical records which is
medical malpractice caused by Mathew Biddle acting in concert with others in the
violating of Plaintiffs Civil Rights under 42 USC § 1983 and Constitutional
Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Right to receive 'due process' and
'equal protection' of the law. And, also, amounts to violation of Plaintiff Eighth
Amendment's rights to the be free of 'cruel and unusual punishment' under the
U.S. Constitution.

(Dk.No.3-lat1|l9.)

The allegations included in Loney's complaint essentially describe an administrative

headache he has experienced trying to request medical records from the defendant. The main

facts alleged by Loney consist of the following:
Mathew Biddle is an employee of VCUHS-HIM (Health Information
Management). He is legally responsible for the overall operation of HIM, at all

times relevant to this action thereto andmust be held accountable for acts done by
him that violated Plaintiffs civil and constitutional Rights under the 14th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. . . . Plaintiff stayed in the hospital from
December 8, 2006 until December 11, 2006. Five days later Plaintiff returned to
MCV, in the custody of the Richmond City Deputy Sheriff, because of back
spasms, neck pains, severe headachs [sic] and loss of feeling in my body. (Dec.
16, 2006 MCV-Hospital visit). I've tried to retrieve my medical records for

several years during my incarceration and was refused on all occasions by MCV.
The only medical records provided by MCV was the Dec. 16, 2006 records; but
not the Dec. 8-Dec. 11 2006 yr. records when I was an actual in patient.
(Dk. No. 3-1 at ffl 5, 8-11.)

The plaintiff then goes on to describe several alleged conversations he had with various
other individuals who work with the defendant.

(See Dk. No. 3-1 at ffl[ 12-16.)

These

conversations ultimately ended with the defendant telling Loney, "I'm not giving you those
records." (Dk. No. 3-1 at ^ 17) (quotation omitted).

The Court has original jurisdiction over Loney's constitutional claims. See 18 U.S.C. §

1331. None of Loney's factual allegations, however, relate to any of his constitutional claims.
Loney has failed to allege any facts that would support the conclusory statement that Biddle has
violated Loney's due process, equal protection, or Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel
and unusual punishment. (Dk. No. 3-1 at K 19.) "A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citing BellAtl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). Loney has completely failed to do
this.

Accordingly, even affording Loney's constitutional allegations the utmost liberal

construction, this Court must DISMISS these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
for failure to state a claim.

The remaining claims—"fraudulent concealment," "deprivation of a right to receive a
continuity in medical treatment," and "denial of the right to receive medical records which is

medical malpractice"—all represent state-law causes of action, if they represent valid causes of
action at all. The Court would have original jurisdiction to hear these state-law claims, if

complete diversity of citizenship existed between the parties and the amount in controversy

exceeded $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Loney's complaint, however, does not allege any facts

supporting diversity jurisdiction beyond the statement that "the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum of 75,000 exclusive of interest and cost, and arises under the Constitution and laws of the

United States." (Dk. No. 3-1 at 12A.) Loney has not alleged the citizenship of Biddle, but given
that Biddle works at the Virginia Commonwealth University Health System located in

Richmond, Virginia, he is likely a citizen of Virginia.

Because Loney is also a citizen of

Virginia, complete diversity of citizenship does not exist. Accordingly, the Court does not have
original subject matter jurisdiction over Loney's state-law claims.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction if the Court "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." Since

this Court has dismissed all of Loney's constitutional claims, it declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Loney's state-law claims. Additionally, the Court DENIES as MOOT Loney's
"Motion for the Court's Assistance in Service of Process: Summons; Pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ.
P. 4(c)(3)." (Dk. No. 3-4.)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a court to sanction parties who file frivolous

lawsuits or motions "presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). The Court is aware
that Loney currently has one case pending in this Court. See 3:1 Icv845-REP. Additionally, less

than a month before Loney filed the instant case, this Court dismissed a case from Loney
because it was too vague, conclusory, and frivolous. See 3:14cv383-HEH. Moreover, this Court
is aware of at least three other cases Loney has filed in this Court since 2008. See 3:13cv836-

REP, 3:llcv337-REP, 3:08cv820-REP. The Court hereby puts Loney on notice that filing

frivolous lawsuits that lack any factual or legal basis, such as this one, will likely result in
sanctions.

The Court will enter an appropriate order.

Let the Clerk send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion via U.S. mail to the pro se
plaintiff.

Date: August-? . 2014

Richmond, VA

Isl

John A. Gibney, Jr,
tMted States D&tr&t