Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Beil v. First Correctional Medical

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio

June 18, 2019

JAMES F. BEIL, Plaintiff,
v.
FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOC. 1, 2]

          JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pro se Plaintiff James Beil brings this action against First Correctional Medical and M.T.C.[1] He identifies the federal statute under which he brings his claims as “Health Care.”[2] The complaint asserts eight claims without supporting factual allegations, and states in its entirety as follows:

I. No surgery led to prostate damage & torture. No. proper pill. Pain! Delayed me too many years. Chronic Pelvic pain syndrome. Prostatitis;
II. Lost wages & business & home improvement;
III. Lost pension (teamster);
IV. Lost jobs. Lost time;
V. Lost social life & workouts & family life;
VI. Mock me & [illegible] Father (Police);
VII. Lost [sic] of further College; and
VIII. More possible lawsuits.

         Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, [3] the Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.[4] The Court's obligation to liberally construe Plaintiff's complaint is not without limits and does not require the Court to conjure factual allegations or legal claims on Plaintiff's behalf.[5]

         As a threshold matter, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and it is Plaintiff's burden to establish that this Court has authority to hear his case.[6] Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, ”[7] and over cases where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00.[8]

         Plaintiff's complaint does not articulate a cognizable federal question, nor is a federal question is discernable on the face of the pleading. While Plaintiff seeks One Million Dollars in damages, Plaintiff's complaint does not articulate facts from which the Court could infer a basis for diversity jurisdiction. Even liberally construed, Plaintiff's complaint does not invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction and without subject matter jurisdiction, the Court lacks authority over this matter.[9] Nor does the complaint satisfy federal notice pleading requirements because it does not provide defendants with fair notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which those claims rest.[10]

         Accordingly, this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.