As observe d by another judge of this Court, Mr. Hargrave “wa s convicted by a Prince 1 Geor g e’s County , Maryland, jury and is servinga life se ntence for a crime that rec eived nationwide attention-- setting his ex-wife Y vette Cade on fire.” Ha rg ra v e v . W as h. Po st , 2009 WL1312513 * 1 (D.D.C., May 12, 2009) (Ke nnedy , J .). See also Def .’s Ex. 1 (article on Mr. Har g rave ’s sentenc ing)
. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
RO G ER B. H AR G RA VE , ) ) P la in t if f, )

) v. ) Civ. Act ion No. 09-0147 (RM C ) ) WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER e t al . , ) ) De fend ant s. )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION In this civil action filed pr o s e , Ro g e r B . H argra ve , a pr iso ne r i nc arc e rate d in Cumberland, Mar

yland, sues Washing ton Hospital Center (“ WHC”) and WHC employ ees Ni c he lle Gr e e n a

nd Dr . T imo thy

L ig ht f or “ g ro ss n e g lig e nc e .” Com pl. ¶ 8 . M r. Ha

rgra ve c la ims that D e fe nd ants ’ f

a ilure to r e sp on d to his re qu e st f or the me dic a l r e c or ds of

a fo rm e r p atie nt, Yvette Cade , hindere d his ability to defe nd ag ainst Ms. Cade’s civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court fo r P ri nc e Ge or g e ’s County , M ary land . Co ns e qu e ntl y , M s. Ca de wa s a wa rd e d a $4 0 mi lli on

c ivi l jud g me nt a g a ins t hi m. SeeCom pl. ¶¶ 4- 5 & Atta c h. Mr . H argra ve se e ks $4 5 mi lli on

in 1 damag es. Def

endants move to dismiss the complaint under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 12(b)( 1) for

lack of subject matter jur isdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for f ailure to state a

claim upon wh ic h r e lie f c an b e g ra

nte d. Up on

c on sid e ratio n o f t

he c omp la int

[Dk t. # 1], D e fe nd ants ’2

mot ion s to dis mis s [D kt. ## 10 & 13 ], Mr . H argra ve ’s op po sit ion

[Dk t. # 15 ] an d D e fe nd ants ’
re ply [Dk t. # 17 ], th e Court

fi nd s th at it

ha s su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n b ut t hat th e c omp la int

fa ils to s tate a ne g lig e nc e c la im. I t th e re fo re wi ll gra nt D e fe nd ants ’ R

ule 12 (b )( 6) mot ion

to d ism iss
. I. BACKG ROUND Mr . H argra

ve a lle g e s th e fo llo wi ng . D ur ingdis c ov e ry in t he a fo re me nti on e d c ivi l action in Mary

land, Mr. Ha

rg rave reque sted Ms. Cade’s medic al re cords. In Dec ember 2007, Ms. Cade’s attorney

stated duringa “pr e-tria l confe renc e . . . re g ardingdiscovery reque st[ s]” that M r. Ha rgr av e w o u l d

h av e t o p ay

$ 5 0 0 fo r c o p i es o f M s . C ad e’ s m ed i ca l re co rd s , “a n d th e J u d ge ruled on [a] mot ion to W ashing ton Hospital Center as be ing moot in that I would still have to pa

y for sa id rec ords.” Compl. ¶ 2. In April 2008, Mr. Ha rg rave reque sted the medica l rec ords from Ms. Ca de ’s tr e atin gphy sic ian, Dr . L ig ht, and fr om M s. Gr e e n, ne ith e r o f who m r e sp on de d to his reque st for the re cords a

nd their costs. Id . ¶¶ 1, 3. Mr. H argrave had “no c hoice but to proc eed [t o trial] without said Medica l Records.” Id . ¶ 3. F oll ow inga

be nc h tr ia l, t

he County

Cir c uit Court entere d judgme nt for Ms. Cade on O ctober 7, 2008. Compl. Att ach. II. DI SCU SSIO N 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction The subjec t matter jurisdiction of the fe dera l district courts is determined g ener ally by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which confe rs orig inal jurisdiction over “a ll civil actions arising under the Constit ution, laws, or treaties of the United States, a nd 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which confe rs orig inal jurisdiction over “a ll civil actions where the matter in c ontroversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is betwe en (1) citizens of differ ent States[.] ” A pa rty seekingrelief

in the district court must plead fa cts that bringthe suit within t he cour t's jurisdiction, see F e d. R. C iv. P.D e f e n d an t s f a u l tM r . H ar g r av e f

o r f a i l i n gt o a l l e g e h i s “ p r e - i n c ar c e r at i o nr e s i d e n c y” 2 and the r esidenc y

of ea ch De fenda

nt, Mem. of L aw in Support of De f.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 3-4, but the Court is required to re ad pr o s e filings liber ally . Moreove r, “[p]l eading s must be construed so a s to do justi ce.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 8(e) . Def endants’ que stions surrounding the diverse r esidenc y

require ment do not defe at the Court’s appa rent jurisdiction but rather raise a n issue that cannot be resolved w ithout further fa ctual deve lopment of the re cord a nd the op po rt un ity fo r M r. Ha

rgra ve to a me nd the c omp la int
. See R ockwe ll Intern. Corp. v. U.S., 549 U.S. 457, 473-4 (2007) ( “[W ]hen a plaintiff files a complaint in fede ral c ourt and then voluntarily

amends the c omplaint, courts look to the amended c omplaint to determine jur isd ic tio n. ” ); American Tele com Co., L.L.C. v. Republic of Lebanon , 501 F.3d 534, 537 ( 6 Cir. th 2007) (“ A Rule 12(b)( 1) motion to dism iss for lack of subject matter jur isdiction may involve a fa c ia l atta c k o r a

fa c tua l atta c k. ” ); Cra nev . Ca rr , 814 F.2d 758, 760 n.2 ( D.C. Cir. 1987) ((“ discovery

is available to a scer

tain the fa cts bea

ringon [j urisdictional] i ssues”) ( quoting Op pe nh e im e r F

un d, In c . v . S

an de rs , 437 U.S. 340, 351 n. 13 (1978)) ( brac kets in orig inal; other citations omitt ed). 3 8(a) , or risk dismissal of the ac tion, seeFe d. R. Civ. P . 12(h)( 3).

De fe nd ants c on te nd

that Mr . H argra

ve ha s n ot p le a de d s uf

fi c ie nt f a c ts t o e sta

bli sh
su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n und e r e ith e r § 13 31 or § 1 33 2. Mr . H argra

ve ’s c omp la int

fo r “ g ro ss neg lige nce” does not prese nt a fe dera l question, and his attempt to cure this def iciency by later
a sse rt ingthat “ the ne g lig e nc e state d h e re in v iol ate s a ri g ht t o d ue pr oc e ss, ” Pl. ’s Op p’ n ¶ 1, fa ils sorely . Howeve r, the fa ce of the complaint provides a basis for diver sity

jurisdiction inasmuch as Mr. Har g rave lists hi s residenc e as Cumber land, Mary land, the De fenda

nts’ addre sses as Washington, D.C., and plea ds an amount in controve rsy well above the $75,000 threshold. Be cause “diver sity

of citizenship is assessed at the time the a ction is filed,” Freeport-M cMoRan, Inc. v . K N Energy, Inc . 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991), the Court is satisfied that it has orig inal jurisdiction to entertain the c omplaint under the diver sity statute. 2 2. F a ilure to S tate a

Cla im Def endants c ontend that the complaint should be dismissed beca use Mr. Ha

rg rave has fa iled to state a ne g lige nce c laim. At this pl eadingstag e, a c omplaint may be dismissed for fa ilure to s tate a

c la im u po n a de te rm inatio n th at th e pla int if f c ann ot e sta

bli sh“ any

se t of fa c ts4

consistent with the alleg ations in the complaint” to support the alleg ed violation. Be ll A tla nti c Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.C t. 1955, 1969 (2007) (c itations omi tted). “A pleadingthat [m ere ly ] offers ‘la bels and c onclusions’ [] ‘a f ormulaic re citation of the e lements of
a ca use of a ction’ [or] ‘naked asse rtion[s ]’ devoid of ‘fur ther fa ctual enha

nceme nt’” c annot survive a Rule 12( b)(6) motion to di smiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct . 1937, 1949 (2009) (qu o t i n g Twom bly ). In ruling on a motion to dism iss, the Court need not ac cept leg al conc lusions cast a s fac tual alleg ations, W arre n v . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 353 F.3d 36, 40 ( D.C. Cir. 2004), or “infe renc es dra

wn by [t he plaintiff] if such infer ence s are unsupported by the fa cts set out in the complaint,” Kow al v . M

CI Com mu nic ati on s Co rp . , 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 ( D.C. Cir. 1994). To state a ne g lig e nc e c la im und e r D ist ri c t of Col umb ia

law, Mr . H argra

ve mus t
a lle g e fa c ts e sta

bli sh ing“ (1 ) a

duty , o we d b y

the de fe nd ant t o th e pla int if f, to e xer c ise re a so na

ble
car e, (2) a bre ach of

this duty , and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proxim ately cause d by

the defe ndant' s brea ch.” W

ils on v . G oo d H

um or Cor p ., 757 F.2d 1293, 1297 n.3 ( D.C. Cir. 1985);
acc ord Jolev are v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. , 521 F. Supp.2d 1, 14 (D.D .C. 2007). The alleg ed fa cts do not identify a leg al duty

WHC owed Mr. Har g rave to produce Ms. Cade’s
me dic a l r e c or ds , n or

c an a duty be re a so na

bly inf e rr e d. Part ic ula

rl y , M r. Ha

rgra ve do e s n ot s tate that he obtained Ms. Cade ’s written c onsent for sa id disclosure or a court orde r compe lling disclosure; eve n if he ha d so alleg ed, WHC would have ha d no leg al duty to provide the re cords for f ree . III . C ON CL USI ON

F or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , th e Court c on c lud e s th at Mr . H argra ve ha s f a ile d to state a c la im u po n whic h r e lie f m ay

be g ra nte d a nd , th us , g ra nts De fe nd ants ’ m oti on

to d ism iss5

[Dk t. # # 1 0 & 13 ] und e r F e d. R. C iv. P. 1 2( b) (6 ). A s e pa rate Or de r a c c omp anie s th is Memorandum Opinion.
Date : Se pte mbe r 2 4, 20 09 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER United States District J udg e