United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro
H. McKinley Jr., District Judge
matter is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff
Charles David Scholl's pro se complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the
Court will dismiss the instant action.
currently a prisoner incarcerated at the Little Sandy
Correctional Complex, filed his complaint on a form for
filing a civil-rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Therein, he complains about his earlier detention at
the Green River Correctional Complex (GRCC) and sues, in
their individual capacities, Dr. Lester Lewis, M.D., and
Lessye Crafton, APRN, who are Correct Care Solutions (CCS)
employees who work at GRCC. As his statement of claims,
Medical Negleience for failing to realize I had/have a
serious need. (1) Delay in time medical treatment. (3)
Failing to realize I was in need of an outside Doctors
assistants for ongoing bleeding and pain from where I had
surgery done on 12-25-16, and since 2-18-18 my stoma has been
protruding (4-6) inches outside my stomach.
then provides details regarding his claims and concludes as
follows: “For the above stated reasons and allegations,
this states a claim for which relief can be rendered and
clearly shows negligence on behalf of Dr. Lester Lewis and
Nurse Lessy Crafton for delay in medical treatment.” As
relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary and punitive damages,
payment of court filing fees, and “All follow-up
medical care needed.”
Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental
entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review
the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under §
1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the court
determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199 (2007).
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Id. at 327.
order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim,
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). “[A] district court must (1) view the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and
(2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.”
Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d
478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v.
Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations
federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,
and their powers are enumerated in Article III of the
Constitution and in statutes enacted by Congress. Bender
v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541
(1986); see generally, 28 U.S.C. §§
1330-1364. Therefore, “[t]he first and fundamental
question presented by every case brought to the federal
courts is whether it has jurisdiction to hear a case, even
where the parties concede or do not raise or address the
issue.” Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Assocs.,
Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 606-07 (6th Cir. 1998). Without
jurisdiction, courts have no power to act. Id. at
606. The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests with the
plaintiff. Hedgepeth v. Tennessee, 215 F.3d 608, 611
(6th Cir. 2000); Douglas, 150 F.3d at 606.
“Congress has defined the province of federal judicial
authority in two basic jurisdictional statutes.”
Douglas, 150 F.3d at 607 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332).
the diversity-jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and is between-(1) citizens of different
States[.]” § 1332(a). “[D]iversity
jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is
a citizen of a different State from each
plaintiff.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v.
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). Here, Plaintiff has
not alleged that he is diverse in citizenship with either
Defendant. Thus, he fails to establish diversity