United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
VAN MEERVELD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
se plaintiff Geneva Hawthorne filed the above-captioned
matter in this Court in which she asserts a claim for medical
malpractice resulting in the death of her son against Tulane
Hospital and Clinic, Dr. Jessica Debord, Dr. Anish J. Patel,
Dr. Eric Simon, Dr. Sidney Longwell, Dr. Gabriel Fette, Dr.
Brenda Lee, Dr. Kristeen Batmen, Dr. Muhammed Ahg, and Dr.
Carol Bitar. She alleges that the defendants failed to
initiate machine dialysis based on a nephrology consultation
from a prior hospitalization and discharged the patient
without verifying the effectiveness of diuretics.
following reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that this lawsuit be
DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and without
prejudice to any right the plaintiff may have to file her
complaint in state court.
9, 2018, this Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). The Court further ordered the Clerk of Court
to withhold summons in order to allow the Court to review
plaintiff's complaint to determine whether it satisfies
the requirements of the federal in forma pauperis
statute. The Court ordered plaintiff to file a written
statement of her position regarding this Court's
subject-matter jurisdiction by June 13, 2018, and warned that
her failure to respond would result in dismissal of her
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff
has not filed a written statement in response to this
exists no absolute right to proceed in forma
pauperis in federal civil matters under §1915;
instead, it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay
filing fees when it is apparent that the claims do not
lack merit on their face. See Startii v. United
States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir.1969); see also
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996)
(noting that the revocation of the privilege of proceeding in
forma pauperis is not new).
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) provides for summary dismissal
sua sponte, should the Court determine that a case
is frivolous. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides in pertinent
part as follows:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that - * * *
(B) the action or appeal -
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune