Perry v. Lab Corp et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T Randa on January 24, 2006. Perry shall submit a statement explaining the jurisdictional basis of the present action no later than February 24, 2006. (cc: via US Mail to Fred L Perry)(Randa, Rudolph)

Download PDF
Perry v. Lab Corp et al Doc. 3 Case 2:06-cv-00102-RTR Filed 01/24/2006 Page 1 of 4 Document 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN F R E D L. PERRY, P l a i n t i f f, v. L A B CORP, SUBSTANCE ABUSE MANAGEMENT INC., and CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants. C a s e No. 06-C-0102 DECISION AND ORDER O n January 23, 2006, the Court received the complaint of Fred Perry ("Perry") and h is request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Perry's complaint alleges that he, as a re q u ire m e n t of his employment as a commercial driver, submitted to a random drug test, w h ich he failed. (Compl. 4.) Perry claims that this failure resulted in the termination of his e m p lo ym e n t. (Id.) However, he alleges that the test results were prompted not by the i n g e s t i o n of any illicit drugs, but by cough syrup containing both codeine and morphine. P e rry complains that the testing did not conform to federal testing standards established for c o m m e rc ia l drivers, and the defendants were negligent in their testing and/or setting of stan d ard s related to the drug test. Accordingly, he seeks "an unspecified amount of monetary a n d punitive damages by [sic] the defendants for negligence." (Id. 6.) Case 2:06-cv-00102-RTR Filed 01/24/2006 Page 2 of 4 Document 3 T o authorize a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must make two d e te rm in a tio n s : (1) whether the litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing the action; a n d (2) whether the action warrants dismissal because it is frivolous or malicious, fails to s ta te a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant w h o is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) & (e)(2). The Court is obliged to g i v e Perry's pro se allegations, however unartfully pleaded, a liberal construction. See H a in e s v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Having reviewed Perry's financial affidavit, the Court finds that he has established h is inability to pay the filing costs associated with commencing his action. Next, the Court c o n s id e r s whether Perry's complaint should be dismissed because it is frivolous or malicious, f a ils to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a d e f en d a n t who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Before reaching that in q u iry, the Court first raises a jurisdictional concern. At any point in a proceeding, a court may inquire into the jurisdictional basis of an a c tio n pending before it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 3 1 2 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Ruhrgas v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1 9 9 9 )). In the present instance, Perry asks for relief from the defendants' negligence. This re q u e st articulates a state tort, rather than a federal cause of action.1 If Perry is claiming Perry's complaint may be interpreted as suggesting that the Defendants' failure to conform to the requirements o f the Code of Federal Regulations supports a claim of negligence. Alternatively or additionally, Perry may think that th e purported violation of the Code of Federal Regulations sufficiently states a federal claim. This reading does not allay th e Court's jurisdictional concerns. A violation of the federal regulations does not automatically create a private, federal c a u s e of action. 1 2 Case 2:06-cv-00102-RTR Filed 01/24/2006 Page 3 of 4 Document 3 w ro n g f u l termination, that too is a state cause of action. Thus, based on the complaint, this C o u rt cannot say, with certainty, that it has jurisdiction over Perry's action pursuant to 28 U .S .C . 1331. Nor may the Court exercise diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1 3 3 2 because two of the defendants appear to be residents of the same state as Perry. Perry's complaint was submitted on a form made available by courts for litigants who a re proceeding pro se. Despite the plain wording of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil P ro c e d u re requiring a "a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisd ic tio n depends," that form does not require an explanation of the basis for a litigant's in v o c a tio n of the Court's jurisdiction. The Court, therefore, will stay further consideration o f Perry's IFP request and will give him an opportunity to explain why he thinks this Court h a s subject matter jurisdiction over his action. If Perry cannot provide a basis for invoking th e Court's jurisdiction, his action will be dismissed. Lest there should be any confusion, P e rry should not take any further action in this case until he has satisfied the Court that it d o e s , in fact, have jurisdiction over his claim. 3 Case 2:06-cv-00102-RTR Filed 01/24/2006 Page 4 of 4 Document 3 N O W , THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D THAT: P e rry SHALL submit a statement explaining the jurisdictional basis of the present a c tio n no later than February 24, 2006. If Perry has not submitted an explanation by that d a te , the Court will understand that he cannot identify any basis for the Court's exercise of s u b je c t matter jurisdiction over his action and it will be dismissed accordingly. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 24th day of January, 2006. BY THE COURT s / Rudolph T. Randa Hon. Rudolph T. Randa C h ie f Judge 4

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?