Mercer v. Westchester Medical Center
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-08268
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Mercer v. Westchester Medical Center: Judge Swain dismissed Mercer’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of diversity jurisdiction.
Robert Mercer’s federal action against Westchester Medical Center was dismissed; the court declined to consider any remaining state-law claims and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Mercer v. Westchester Medical Center, Robert Mercer sued the medical center over psychiatric treatment he received from March 1 through March 17, 2021. He alleged that a social worker misrepresented New York mental-health law and asserted constitutional and state-law claims, seeking money damages.
The court ruled that Mercer’s amended complaint was substantially the same as his original complaint and still did not state a federal constitutional claim. The court also found no diversity jurisdiction for his state-law claims because Mercer indicated that both he and the medical center reside in New York, and it declined to hear those claims through supplemental jurisdiction.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action under the federal statute governing complaints filed without prepaying filing fees, denied another opportunity to amend, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Mercer v. Westchester Medical Center · No. 1:21-cv-08268
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
Robert Mercer proceeded without a lawyer and filed the action without prepaying the filing fee. He based the case on psychiatric treatment he received at the Westchester Medical Center Behavioral Health Center from March 1 through March 17, 2021.
Mercer alleged that a medical-center social worker discussed changing his status from involuntary to voluntary by having him sign a notice of status. He claimed that the social worker misrepresented provisions of New York Mental Health Law with the intent to commit health-care fraud by keeping him hospitalized longer than he wanted or believed necessary. Mercer alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.13, and a federal provision he identified as “18 usc chapter 47 § 1035 the Misrepresentation Act of 1967.” He sought money damages.
The court had previously directed Mercer to amend his original complaint to address identified deficiencies. Mercer filed an amended complaint on January 27, 2022. The opinion also notes that Mercer had filed an earlier related case arising from the same events, which asserted False Claims Act claims; that earlier case was dismissed for lack of statutory standing.
Court’s analysis
Because Mercer filed without prepaying the filing fee, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. In reviewing the amended complaint, the court was required to read Mercer’s allegations liberally because he was representing himself, but the complaint still had to include enough factual material to make a claim legally plausible.
The court concluded that the amended complaint was substantially similar to the original complaint and that the additional facts did not change its earlier analysis. The court therefore dismissed Mercer’s constitutional claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
The court separately addressed any state-law claims. Diversity jurisdiction requires the plaintiff and defendant to be citizens of different states and requires a claim exceeding $75,000. The court stated that Mercer indicated both he and Westchester Medical Center reside in New York, which precluded complete diversity. After dismissing the federal claims, the court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.
Disposition
The court declined to give Mercer another opportunity to amend because it had already allowed an amendment and concluded that the defects could not be cured through further amendment. The action was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Mercer permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Mercer a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.