United States District Court, D. Delaware
Jordean Lorah, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Jordean Lorah ("Plaintiff) filed this action on November
2, 2016. (D.I. 2) She appears pro se and
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(D.I. 4) Plaintiff moves to include specific medical
documentation as an admission (D.I. 5) and to amend the
Complaint (D.I. 6). The Court proceeds to review and screen
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
3, 2016, Plaintiff presented to Defendant Go Care Abbey
Medical ("Go Care") with back and pelvic pain. She
underwent medical testing, and the process included medical
personnel asking her numerous questions to ascertain the
cause of her condition. Apparently, Plaintiff was diagnosed
with an infection. She alleges that she was not tested for an
infection and was not provided treatment for the "false
medical cause." Plaintiff underwent a medical procedure
for a different medical condition on July 8, 2016.
filed a complaint with a professional licensing entity and
alleges that it was neglected. She also filed a complaint
with the Department of Justice; the Human Relations
Department was notified. Plaintiff alleges that a "more
thorough records check is underway concerning Go Care, "
and she is "still waiting" for records. On November
2, 2016, Plaintiff spoke with Go Care's office
manager, who requested that Plaintiff pay a fee for the
remainder of her records.
not clear, Plaintiff appears to allege "the widespread
dissemination of false information" by Go Care.
Plaintiff frames her allegations as: (1) a First Amendment
violation for "freedom of speech prohibits
defamation;" (2) a Fourteenth Amendment violation
"suspect identify, regarding the Plaintiffs national
origin or citizenship;" (3) a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1035(2) for making a false representation of a
material fact with knowledge that it was false, relating to
the infection with which Defendant diagnosed; (4) violation
of 42 C.F.R. 482.24(c)'s "standard condition of
participation medical information must support
diagnosis;" and (5) violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324c
for document fraud in preparing a medical document that was
falsely made and does not relate to Plaintiff. Plaintiff
seeks penalties under 8 U.S.C. § 1324c for document
fraud, ranging from $250 to $2, 000 per page.
federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action 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." Ball v. Famiglio, 726
F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The
Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as
true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se
plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515
F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro
se, her pleading is liberally construed and her
Complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations
action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a complaint as
frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or
"fantastic or delusional" factual scenario.
Neitzke, 490 at 327-28; see also Wilson v.
Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989); Deutsch
v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995)
(holding frivolous a suit alleging that prison officials took
an inmate's pen and refused to give it back).
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
is identical to the legal standard used when deciding Rule
12(b)(6) motions. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184
F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). However, before dismissing a complaint
or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the Court must grant a plaintiff leave to amend
her complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
complaint may be dismissed only if, accepting the
well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court
concludes that those allegations "could not raise a
claim of entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). While "detailed
factual allegations" are not required, a complaint must
do more than simply provide "labels and
conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action." Davis v. Abington
Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
See Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC., 765 F.3d 306,
315 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570). Finally, a plaintiff must plead facts
sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility.
See Johnson v. City of Shelby, ___ U.S.
___, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed
for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the
claim asserted. See Id. at 346.
the pleading regime established by Twombly and
Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the
elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2)
identify allegations that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and
(3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the
court should assume their veracity and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See
Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp.,809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d
Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts
in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is
entitled to relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679