Alston v. Yazdani et al, No. 8:2015cv02660 - Document 3 (D. Md. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/17/2015. (c/m 9/17/2015 aos, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Alston v. Yazdani et al Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOl/II/em Dh'iJiOIl * RONNIE LEE ALSTON, -.. = ..,., * OJ Plaintiff, -< * c::> u;!= .....• iI ~~ ,..., c):::o '" Case No.: G,JH-IS-26611~7: f.I) * , I ., ~ I MD ARASTOO YAZDANI, el ill., "l:~ * * * * * * * [OJ ~ r""l-" ~ "- 0 ....... - ,,~r :xnrrl ~......• o ....J c=; ~ -I * Defendants. -iU>iJ ;z::0 :::J "" * "" . -0 -0 v. V) "0 ::0" -<0 ,c >:::l z ......• .. <J1 c::> * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION The above-entitled Complaint 9. 2015. together with a Motion to was liled on September Proceed in Forma Pauperis. See ECF Nos. I & 2. The Court will grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. but the Complaint The pro se Complaint will be dismissed. was liled pursuant to this Court's PlaintilTalleges that the named Defendants by intentionally failing to provide quality medical care, while lillsifying medical records." No. I at 1 & 3. He asserts that Defendants from pursuing to a hospital. administered highly addictive insurance resulting is provided Plaintilrs pain medication. prescriptions. in an unspecified through Medicare. health insurance ECF medical records in order to prevent Plaintiff claims that he was admitted and discharged with a means to detox. !d. lie states that Defendants Plaintiff at their ol1ice. wrote "bogus" medications. withheld exploited against them. Id. at 3. PlaintitTadditionally remedies without being provided "intentionally federal question jurisdiction. and failed to prescribe jrom the hospital refused to treat effective injury to Plaintiff. 1£1. PlaintilTspecilies that his health !d. at I. Dockets.Justia.com The Complaint does not present a federal question to be litigated, Under the "well. pleaded complaint" rule. facts showing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction "must be at1innatively alleged in the complaint:' Pinkley, Inc, ,', Cily o(Frederick. 191 F.3d 39-1. 399 (4th CiL I(99) (citing McNIIII,', Gen'l Molars Acceptance Corp .. 298 U,S, 178.56 S,C!. 780. 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)), "A court is to presume. therefore. that a case lies outside its limited jurisdiction unless and until jurisdiction has been shown to be proper:' Uniled Siaies \" Poole. 531 F,3d 263. 274 (-Ith CiL 2(08) (citing Kokkonen \', Gllardian l.!fi: Ins, Co .. 511 U,S, 375.377. 114 S, Ct. 1673 (1994)). Moreover. the "burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction is on, .. the party asserting jurisdiction:' RoM EWl/1s & Assocs .. LLC \', Ilo/ihllllgh. 609 F,3d 359. 362 (4th CiL 2010): accord lIerl= \', Friend. 599 U.S. 77.95.130 S.C!. 1181 (2010): '\/clJllmey ", Cllccinelli. 616 F.3d 393. 408 (4th CiL 2010), The Complaint does not comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc, 8(a)(2) which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to reliet:" nor Rule 8(e)(l) which requires that each avennent of a pleading be "simple. concise. and direct:' A pleading must give the Court and Defendants "fair notice of what the plaintitrs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests:' S\l'irkie\l'ic= \', Sorel/1a NA .. 53-1U,S, 506. 512.122 S. Ct. 992 (2002) (quoting Conley \', Gibson. 355 U.S. 41. -17.78 S, Ct. 99 (1957)), Plaintiff docs not provide dates regarding the alleged incidents. nor does the Complaint present a brief narrative regarding the actions taken by Defendants which lorm the basis fiJI' the Complaint. See ECF No, I. This Court may dismiss a complaint that is "so confused. ambiguous. vague or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance. if any. is well disguised:' Salaill/ddin ", CII0I/10.861 F,2d 40. -12(2d CiL1(88), The instant complaint is vague and so generalized that expecting the named 2 Defendants to defend against the allegations is unreasonable. Thus, the Complaint does not provide this Court or any potential Defendants '"fair notice" of the claims and facts upon which they are based. The Complaint must be dismissed. A separate Order follows. Dated: September /LIL- {7 , 2015 GEORGE J. iiAZEL United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
