Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fouad v. Jackson Memorial Hospital

United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division

June 25, 2019

OMAR MOHSEN IBRAHIM FOUAD, Plaintiff,
v.
JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, JACKSON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, THOMAS REBULL, and JENNIFER LAURA HOCHSTADT, Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

          FEDERICO A. MORENO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record.

         On June 14, 2019, pro se plaintiff Omar Mohsen Ibrahim Fouad ("Plaintiff) filed a complaint against multiple defendants, including Jackson Memorial Hospital, for allegedly violating his civil rights. In specifying the civil rights allegedly violated, the Plaintiff wrote that "all of them" were. (D.E. 1). According to the Plaintiff, on August 8, 2018, he suffered physical and mental injury as a result of police brutality. The Plaintiff identifies the officer who inflicted the harm, but does not name him as a defendant. Instead, he names four others and is suing them for allegedly covering up the police brutality and depriving him of video evidence of the incident. The cover up, he writes, proves medical negligence on behalf of Jackson Memorial Hospital.

         To survive a motion to dismiss, 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) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). This requirement "give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the . .. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (second alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). When considering a motion to dismiss, the court takes the plaintiffs factual allegations as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). Here, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is entitled to a liberal construction of the complaint. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam).

         Upon review of the complaint, it appears that all of Plaintiffs claims, including that Jackson Memorial Hospital attempted to "cover up the Police Brutality ... and [it] did it deceitfully and fraudulently," do not amount to any recognized cause of action in federal court. (D.E. 1 at 4). To the extent that Plaintiffs claim for "deceit" is a claim for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation, which it is not, Plaintiff has not pled any particularized facts supporting the claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Consequently, even under the relaxed pleading standard afforded to pro se litigants, see Abele v. Tolbert, 130 Fed.Appx. 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005), Plaintiff fails to state a claim. The legal theories as presented are indisputably meritless against the defendants. See Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed.Appx. 231, 234 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that complaint may be sua sponte dismissed before service of process where its legal theories are indisputably meritless).

         In addition, Plaintiffs complaint is in the form of an impermissible shotgun pleading, as it appears to violate the one-claim-per-count rule. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). That rule requires a party to limit its claim "as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances," and that "[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence ... be stated in a separate count." Id. Plaintiff does neither here. See Solar Star Sys. LLC v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., No. 10-21105-CIV, 2011 WL 3648267, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2011); see also City of Fort Lauderdale v. Scott, No. 10-61122-CIV, 2011 WL 3157206, at *5 (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2011) (finding it "insufficient to entitle a claim an 'Implied Right of Action under [multiple statutes]' and not specify in the claim under which particular ... law a party is proceeding").

         Accordingly, because this Court is unable to ascertain any plausible claim for relief from Plaintiffs complaint, and because Plaintiffs complaint is a shotgun pleading, the instant action is DISMISSED. Although courts "should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires," Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), an action may be dismissed in full "if a more carefully drafted complaint could not state a claim." Ziemba v. Cascade Int'l, Inc., 256 F.3d 1194, 1213 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bank v. Pitt,928 F.2d 1108, 1112 (11th Cir. 1991)). A more carefully drafted complaint in the instant case would still ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.