Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110613_0001307.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 11:58:38
Document Index: 208300803

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1332', '§ 1983', '§ 801', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

| Shar-Rik Molley v. Atlantic City Paramedics
Shar-Rik Molley v. Atlantic City Paramedics
SHAR-RIK MOLLEY, PLAINTIFF,v. ATLANTIC CITY PARAMEDICS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.SHAR-RIK MOLLEY, PLAINTIFF,v.DR. STEVEN GIAMPACARO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.SHAR-RIK MOLLEY, PLAINTIFF,v.ATLANTIC CITY HOSPITAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Noel L. Hillman United States District Judge
Plaintiff, Shar-Rik Molley ("Molley"), a state inmate confined at the Atlantic County Justice Facility in Mays Landing, New Jersey, at the time he submitted the above-captioned Complaints for filing, seeks to bring these actions in forma pauperis. Based on his affidavit of indigence, the Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1998) and order the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint.
At the outset, the Court has determined, sua sponte, that the three actions filed by Molley should be consolidated, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a), because the actions involve common questions of law and fact arising from the same incident. Moreover, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, this Court must review the three Complaints at this time to determine whether they should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Complaints should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim of a federal constitutional violation at this time, and for failure to assert facts to support diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff Molley brings these civil actions, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the following defendants: as to Civil No. 10-6431 (NLH), the Atlantic City Paramedics, Ms. Michele Doe and Michael Doe; as to Civil No. 10-6432 (NLH), Dr. Steven Giampacaro, Dr. Chris Giampacaro, and CFG Health Systems; and as to Civil No. 10-6433 (NLH), the Atlantic City Hospital and the AtlanticCare doctors. (Complaints, Caption and ¶¶ 3b, 3c and 4). The following factual allegations are taken from the Complaints, and are accepted for purposes of this screening only. The Court has made no findings as to the veracity of plaintiff's allegations.
Molley alleges that, on or about June 15, 2010, he was involved in a serious car accident where he allegedly sustained injuries. He states that, on that date, the Atlantic City Paramedics, and in particular, Michele Doe and Michael Doe, failed to diagnose plaintiff's head trauma, treating his scalp wound superficially with a cleaning solution to rinse away the blood, and then told plaintiff to walk to the hospital if he wanted further treatment. (Civil No. 10-6431 (NLH) Complaint at ¶¶ 3c and 4).
Molley further alleges that defendants Dr. Steven Giampacaro and Dr. Chris Giampacaro, his primary care doctors, provided negligent medical care to plaintiff after his June 15, 2010 car accident. Molley alleges that the doctors sent him to a lawyer first before providing treatment. The doctors then prescribed plaintiff Zanax, Percocet and "Lowpressor", as well as therapy. Molley contends that the medication caused him to have seizures and amnesia, and he would forget his therapy sessions. He further complains that Dr. Giampacaro did not make an appointment for plaintiff to see a neurologist (although the hospital allegedly had recommended it) until after Molley missed several therapy sessions due to memory loss. (Civil No. 10-6432 (NLH) Complaint at ¶¶ 3b and 4).
Finally, Molley alleges that the Atlantic City Hospital and the AtlanticCare doctors at the hospital provided negligent care after plaintiff's June 15, 2010 car accident from which he allegedly suffered a black out or loss of consciousness. Molley claims that these defendants failed to diagnose his head trauma after a CAT scan, and basically treated plaintiff "as if nothing was actually wrong with [him]." (Civil No. 10-6433 (NLH) Complaint at ¶¶ 3b and 4).
Molley seeks monetary compensation from the defendants for their negligent care. Namely, he asks that his medical bills be paid and that the defendants be held responsible for their inaction and negligent care. (Complaints at ¶ 5 "Relief").
The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996), requires a district court to review a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis or seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity. The Court is required to identify cognizable claims and to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, 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. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. This consolidated action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) an § 1915A.
In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007)(following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) and Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). See also United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). The Court must "accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). The Court need not, however, credit a pro se plaintiff's "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions." Id.
A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (interpreting the predecessor of § 1915(e)(2), the former § 1915(d)). The standard for evaluating whether a complaint is "frivolous" is an ...