United States District Court, D. Nebraska
LAWAN J. ENGLISH, Plaintiff,
METHODIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM; DARREN KEISER, MD; SEAN BIGLER, PA; PHYSICIANS CLINIC; TIME WARNER CABLE CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS; ESIS AGL SOUTH CENTRAL HUB ESIS CENTRAL WC CLAIMS; KELLY HEMAM, ESIS Supervisor Claims Adjuster; and KIMBERLY STINE, ESIS Claims Adjuster, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lawan English, filed this case on September 9, 2016. She has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court
now conducts an initial review of English's complaint to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
claims that Defendants, Methodist Health Care System, Darren
Keiser, MD, Sean Bigler, PA, Physicians Clinic, Time Warner
Cable, ESIS, Kelly Henam, and Kimberly Stine,  “conspired
to defraud the Plaintiff ... out of benefits & workers
compensation settlement due to work injury on
5-7-2015.” (Complaint (Filing No. 1), p. 4)
English's “statement of claim” (Complaint, p.
6) appears identical to the statement filed in Case No.
8:16CV426, except that the second and third pages are
missing. The attached documents (Complaint pp. 8-79) also
appear identical to the attachments filed in Case No.
8:16CV426, except that another two pages are missing. Other
differences between the two cases are that the complaint in
the instant action (1) names four additional defendants, (2)
is missing form page 3 in which the plaintiff is required to
explain the basis for jurisdiction, and (3) includes an
insert (Complaint, p. 5) listing numerous of federal statutes
which presumably form the basis of the action.
STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must dismiss
a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or
malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). The court also has an independent obligation
to consider its subject matter jurisdiction where there is a
reason to suspect that such jurisdiction is lacking. See
Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th Cir.
2011); Bacon v. Neer, 631 F.3d 875, 877 (8th Cir.
plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to
“nudge their claims across the line from conceivable
to plausible, ” or “their complaint must be
dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“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.”).
essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair
notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a
general indication of the type of litigation
involved.'” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir.
1999)). However, “[a] pro se complaint must be
liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a
lesser pleading standard than other parties.”
Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
jurisdiction is proper where a plaintiff asserts “[a]
non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal
statute, ” commonly referred to as “federal
question” jurisdiction. Northwest South Dakota
Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Smith, 784 F.2d 323, 325 (8th
Cir.1986). The mere suggestion of a federal question is
not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal
courts, rather, the federal court's jurisdiction must
affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly. Bilal v.
Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir.1990).
jurisdiction may also exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
commonly referred to as “diversity of
citizenship” jurisdiction, if “the citizenship of
each plaintiff is different from the citizenship of each
defendant.” Ryan v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers,
Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir.2001) (citation
omitted). In addition, the amount in controversy must be
greater than $75, 000.00 for diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
No. 8:15CV426, English claims federal question jurisdiction
exists because her claim arises under 18 U.S.C. § 371
(criminal conspiracy) and 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims
Act). As explained in a memorandum and order entered today in
that case, these federal statutes do not provide English with
a right of action or have any applicability to her claims. In
the instant action, English again references these statutes
and cites additional sections of the False Claims Act. More
federal criminal statutes are cited by English in the instant
action, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1001, 1002,
1027, 1028, 1033-35, 1347, and 1957 (Complaint, p. 5), but
they do not provide a legitimate basis for the court to
exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter.
English has not alleged diversity of citizenship, the court
notes that in Case No. 8:16CV426, the complaint shows English
and the four Defendant health care providers are all Nebraska
citizens. And, as in that case, the allegations of the
complaint in the instant action also do not show that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00.
the court could exercise subject-matter jurisdiction, the
allegations of the complaint are not sufficient to state a
claim for fraud against any Defendant. The complaint is
conclusory and incomprehensible, and the attachments fail to
shed any light on ...