Ganesh v. Doctor Srinivas Kesanakurthy

Background

Vidyartie Ganesh, who was representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, sued Dr. Srinivas Kesanakurthy, Montefiore The University Hospital for Albert Einstein College of Medicine, several unidentified defendants, insurance companies, and Judge Alicia Gerez. Ganesh alleged that Dr. Kesanakurthy performed one or two heart surgeries on Ganesh’s brother, Vishnu Ganesh, who later died. Ganesh also alleged that, on December 16, 2021, Dr. Kesanakurthy negligently and fraudulently performed the wrong heart procedure on Ganesh, stopped before completing it, and left after saying he lacked the proper tools. Ganesh claimed heart illness and injury, economic losses, pain, emotional harm, permanent disability, inconvenience, and loss of family and friends. He sought $50 million in damages.

Ganesh further alleged that Judge Gerez illegally and unconstitutionally blocked a lawsuit he filed in New York State court on January 8, 2025, and claimed that she acted because of racial bias. Ganesh alleged that he was a citizen and resident of Guyana and said he might live in Florida, but he did not clearly identify his domicile or citizenship status in the United States. He identified Dr. Kesanakurthy as residing in the Bronx but did not provide the citizenship of the other individual defendants.

Federal Claims

The court treated Ganesh’s constitutional-rights allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. A § 1983 claim requires a violation of a federal right by someone acting under state law. The court held that the hospital, its employees, and the insurance companies were private parties or entities, and Ganesh did not allege that they worked for a state or other government body. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against those defendants for failure to state a claim.

The court also dismissed the claims against Judge Gerez based on absolute judicial immunity. It found that Ganesh challenged actions taken during his state-court civil proceedings and did not allege facts showing that Gerez acted outside her judicial responsibilities or outside her jurisdiction. The court stated that judicial immunity applied despite Ganesh’s allegations of racial bias, bad faith, or malice. It also found that Ganesh did not meet the statutory requirements for injunctive relief against a judicial officer under § 1983. The court characterized these claims as frivolous and said they failed to state a claim.

State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction

Ganesh asserted medical-malpractice, negligence, and fraud claims under state law. The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the plaintiff and defendants and generally requires more than $75,000 to be in dispute. The court found that Ganesh had not established his own domicile or clarified whether he was a permanent resident, a naturalized United States citizen, or neither. He also had not provided the citizenship of most individual defendants. Although he sought $50 million, the court said he did not explain the legal basis for that amount.

The court further held that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires enough factual detail to make a claim plausible. The allegations that Dr. Kesanakurthy performed the wrong procedure and left before completing it were too vague to plausibly state medical-malpractice or negligence claims. The fraud allegation lacked facts supporting a fraud claim. The complaint also named other individual defendants in the caption without explaining what each person did or failed to do.

The court additionally found that the negligence and medical-malpractice claims appeared untimely. Based on the December 16, 2021 events and the March 28, 2025 filing date, the court stated that the claims appeared to fall outside New York’s three-year negligence period and two-year-and-six-month medical-malpractice period. The court found no facts supporting equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances. It noted that the fraud claim was not untimely on the information provided, but the complaint did not contain facts explaining how any defendant committed fraud.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under the statute governing initial review of fee-free complaints and under the federal rule requiring dismissal when subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. It granted Ganesh 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing his state-law claims. The amended complaint must establish diversity jurisdiction, plausibly state a state-law claim against each properly named defendant, and show that the claims are timely or that equitable tolling is warranted. If Ganesh does not amend within the permitted time, the court stated that the clerk will be directed to enter judgment.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.