782 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2015), 14-2592, Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital
|Citation:||782 F.3d 331|
|Opinion Judge:||Hamilton, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||LINDA REED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLUMBIA ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Linda Reed, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Milwaukee, WI.|
|Judge Panel:||Before BAUER, TINDER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 30, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Reed claims that during a 2012 stay at the hospital, its staff ignored her requests, treated her poorly, refused to consult with her regarding her care, and physically injured her when she was forcibly discharged. An amended complaint alleged an unelaborated claim of “retaliation,” a violation of the ADA, and state-law claims. The judge dismissed, without prejudice, after considering whether any... (see full summary)
Submitted February 17, 2015[*]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 14-C-330 -- Rudolph T. Randa, Judge.
Linda Reed sued Columbia St. Mary's Hospital alleging that the hospital discriminated against her on the basis of her disability during her stay there. She alleges violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (prohibiting disability discrimination in public accommodations), and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (prohibiting disability discrimination by entities that receive federal funding). In this, her second federal suit based on these facts, the district court dismissed her claims for two reasons. First, it concluded that her claims were precluded by the dismissal of her earlier suit. Second, even if her claims were not precluded, the district court concluded that neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation Act could offer her any remedy. We disagree on both grounds and therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and remand.
Reed alleged in her first complaint that she has tardive dyskinesia, a neurological
disorder that causes involuntary facial and limb movements and makes speaking difficult. During an inpatient stay at the hospital in March 2012, Reed alleged, its staff ignored her requests, treated her poorly, refused to consult with her regarding her care, and physically injured her when she was forcibly discharged. Judge Stadtmueller, the judge assigned to that first case, ruled that the complaint did not contain " a short and plain statement" of the claim as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), dismissed it, and invited Reed to amend. She did so. The amended complaint repeated these factual allegations and alleged an unelaborated claim of " retaliation," a violation of Title III of the ADA, and several state-law claims.
Upon review of the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Judge Stadtmueller dismissed the action " with-out prejudice." He considered whether any of her claims asserted a violation of federal law, including the Rehabilitation Act and the retaliation provision of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12203. But for each potential federal violation, the judge believed that Reed failed to state a claim for relief.
The judge then wrote that because Reed did not state a violation of federal law, the court lacked jurisdiction and had to dismiss the case without prejudice:
Having dismissed all of Ms. Reed's claims that could conceivably arise under federal law, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Likewise, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, lacking a basis for jurisdiction over the potentially-federal claims, the Court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The Court, accordingly, lacks jurisdiction over this case entirely, and must dismiss it. The Court will do so without prejudice.
Reed v. Columbia St. Mary's Hosp., No. 14-C-145-JPS, 2014 WL 805919, at *4 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 28, 2014).The conclusion of the order repeated that " for the reasons discussed above, Ms. Reed's federal claims . . . are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice" but added that the reason is " for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2)." Finally, the court reiterated that " those claims having been dismissed, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and therefore, this matter be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice." Id. In a separate judgment entered the same day, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a), the court again stated that the dismissal was " without prejudice."
Reed apparently took the dismissal " without prejudice" at face value...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP