Parkes v. NYU Langone Health

Background

Tiffany Anne Parkes proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without paying the filing fee. She originally sued NYU Langone Health, Gramercy Gynecology, and Dr. Temitope Awosogba. She alleged that, after fibroid-removal surgery in 2020, she experienced multiple medical problems and painful conditions, and that doctors later found internal scarring. She claimed that Dr. Awosogba lied to and misled her and committed negligence and medical malpractice. She also alleged that NYU falsified medical records.

Parkes cited 22 U.S.C. § 2702 and sought hundreds of millions of dollars. In a June 9, 2025 order, the court dismissed the original complaint with leave to replead because the allegations did not establish a federal claim and did not establish diversity jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court noted that Parkes alleged that all parties were citizens of New York.

Parkes then filed an amended complaint naming only NYU Langone Health and Gramercy Gynecology. She repeated her earlier allegations and cited 22 U.S.C. § 2702, 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 and 114, and provisions identified as “PBH 24-A-2442” and “PBH 2805-D.”

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed the previously asserted claims for the reasons given in its June 9 order. It concluded that Parkes still had not alleged facts establishing a federal cause of action. It also concluded that, because the allegations did not show complete diversity of citizenship, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any state-law negligence or medical-malpractice claims.

The court rejected claims based on 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 and 114 because those statutes concern assaults and maiming within maritime and territorial jurisdiction, and the amended complaint did not involve maritime law. The court further explained that federal criminal statutes do not allow a private person to bring a civil claim seeking someone else’s federal criminal prosecution. Because Parkes lacked standing—the legal requirement that a person show a sufficient connection to the dispute—to seek such a prosecution, the court dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court understood “PBH 24-A-2442” and “PBH 2805-D” to refer to New York Public Health Law provisions. It stated that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of any state-law claims based on those provisions. After dismissing the federal claims, the court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It declined to give Parkes another opportunity to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by further amendment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free appeal status, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”