Harris v. Mount Sinai St. Lukes
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00293
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Harris v. MT Sinai St. Luke’s, Judge McMahon dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and denied fee-free appeal status.
Laquan Devota Harris’s case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. MT SINAI ST. LUKE’S was the defendant. Harris was also denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
What happened
Harris v. MT Sinai St. Luke’s involved a self-represented plaintiff’s claims about alleged assaults, poor medical care, and other conduct in a hospital emergency room. He sought money damages.
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the allegations did not show a federal-law claim and the parties resided in New York, defeating diversity jurisdiction. The court also warned that duplicative or meritless fee-free lawsuits could lead to limits on future fee-free filings.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the dismissal and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so the plaintiff could not proceed without paying appeal fees.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Mount Sinai St. Lukes · No. 1:20-cv-00293
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 21, 2020
Background
Laquan Devota Harris, proceeding without a lawyer, sued MT SINAI ST. LUKE’S after receiving permission to file without paying the court’s filing fee. He alleged that events occurred in the hospital’s emergency room in Manhattan from July 12, 2013, through July 29, 2013. He claimed that doctors, nurses, and security personnel assaulted him; that emergency-services workers and firefighters accused him of murder and assault; that eight dental fillings were knocked out and six teeth were lost; and that he did not receive proper care even though his insurance was billed hundreds of times. He asserted claims described as neglect, assault, murder, bribery, money laundering, and insurance fraud, and sought money damages.
Jurisdiction and prior related proceeding
The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without paying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. It must also dismiss when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacks legal authority to hear the dispute. The court was required to read the self-represented complaint liberally, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
The court noted that Harris had previously filed a substantially similar complaint concerning the same events. In that prior related proceeding, the court dismissed the case because the alleged facts did not suggest a federal claim and diversity jurisdiction was absent. The court reached the same conclusion here: the allegations did not identify a cause of action under federal law, and diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because all parties resided in New York.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h). The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also warned that filing duplicative or otherwise meritless cases while proceeding without paying fees could result in an order requiring Harris to explain why he should not be barred from filing future cases without prior permission. Finally, the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Harris and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.