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.

Robinson v. KVC Prairie Ridge Valley Hospital

United States District Court, D. Kansas

April 23, 2019

DALLAS ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
KVC PRAIRIE RIDGE VALLEY HOSPITAL, ET AL., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          CARLOS MURGUIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pro se plaintiff Dallas Robinson brings this action in forma pauperis against defendants KVC Prairie Ridge Valley Hospital (“KVC”), unspecified “Nurses, ” and “Doctor Naveed.” This matter is before the court on defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13).

         Plaintiff's complaint, which will be discussed in detail below, alleges that an incident occurred involving KVC near the end of 2017 or early 2018.[1] (Doc. 1, at 3.) Plaintiff claims her eye has been injured since this incident and demands at least $500, 000 in damages. (Doc. 1, at 4.) The complaint includes a business addresses for KVC, but no address was provided for any of the other named defendants. Magistrate Judge O'Hara ordered plaintiff to provide addresses for all defendants no later than October 12, 2018, so the Clerk could continue with service of process. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff did not provide additional addresses. Nevertheless, a summons was issued to KVC on September 26, 2018. A summons was not issued to defendants “Nurses” and Doctor Naveed.

         Defendants filed this motion and accompanying memorandum on October 22, 2018. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. On December 10, the Clerk of the Court received a call from plaintiff, stating that she needed to change her own address. The Clerk advised her to file a Notice of Change of Address.

         On December 27, 2018, this court ordered plaintiff to show cause no later than January 11, 2019 as to why the motion should not be considered unopposed. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff did not respond to that order. On January 8, 2019, Judge O'Hara issued an order noting plaintiff had used different addresses when filing two separate cases and ordered her to provide the court with a correct address no later than January 22, 2019. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff did not provide the court with a correct address. Accordingly, this motion will be considered uncontested. See D. Kan. Rule 7.4 (“Absent a showing of excusable neglect, the court will consider and decide the motion as an uncontested motion.”).

         I. Factual Background

         Plaintiff alleges that she was “disrespected by multiple staff [presumably at KVC] around October, November, December, January of 2017-2018.” (Doc. 1, at 3.) She claims a “PRN injection” was placed in her eyedrops “between the dates of 10/21/2017-11/3/2017.” She also claims she went back to KVC on 11/3/2017 to obtain proof that something was put in the eyedrops. She did not state whether she received that proof. Since the incident, she claims her “eye has been hurting horribly” and “it will cost a lot to get it fixed or maybe even replaced.” (Doc. 1, at 4.) She demands at least $500, 000 for damages from the incident.

         Defendants argue that plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because it fails to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and, additionally, defendants “Nurses” and Doctor Naveed must be dismissed for insufficient service of process. (Doc. 14, at 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the court grants defendants' motion and dismisses all defendants from the case.

         II. Rule 12(b)(5)

         a. Legal Standard

         The court will first consider whether the defendants were properly served. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) governs motions to dismiss for insufficient service of process. “If service of process is insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, a federal court is without personal jurisdiction over that defendant.” Rivera v. Riley Cnty. Law Bd., No. 11-cv-02067-JAR-JPO, 2011 WL 4686554, at *2 (D. Kan. Oct. 4, 2011) (citing Blackmon v. U.S.D. 259 Sch. Dist., 769 F.Supp.2d 1267, 1273 (D. Kan. Feb 15, 2011). “Once a defendant challenges service of process in a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(5), the burden falls on the plaintiff to show she has satisfied the statutory and due process requirements with service of process.” Id.

         b. Discussion

         As noted above, Judge O'Hara ordered plaintiff to provide addresses for all defendants prior to October 12, 2018. Plaintiff did not provide these addresses or otherwise respond to that order. The defendants argue that individual defendants “Nurses” and defendant Doctor Naveed must each be dismissed from the case and cannot be forced to respond to these allegations because a summons was never issued and plaintiff failed to respond to the court's order directing her to provide an address for these defendants. (Doc. 14, at 3.) The court agrees.

         Under the burden-shifting analysis described above, this court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants “Nurses” and Doctor Naveed. Defendants have challenged service of process as to those defendants under Rule 12(b)(5), placing the burden on the plaintiff to show service of process was proper. A summons was never issued as to defendants “Nurses” and Doctor Naveed. Judge O'Hara even ordered plaintiff to provide addresses for these defendants so a summons could be issued, but plaintiff never did so. Further, plaintiff did not file a response to this motion, thus failing to answer the defendants' challenge. This court cannot exercise personal ...


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.