Nawrocki v. Development, 4:18-cv-01034 JCH
| Decision Date | 24 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:18-cv-01034 JCH,4:18-cv-01034 JCH |
| Parties | MARYANN NAWROCKI, Plaintiff, v. BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
MARYANN NAWROCKI, Plaintiff,
v.
BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT, Defendant
No. 4:18-cv-01034 JCH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
September 24, 2018
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Maryann Nawrocki's response to the Court's order to show cause. (Docket No. 5). On August 20, 2018, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Docket No. 4). Plaintiff has duly complied and filed a response. However, for the reasons discussed below, plaintiff has failed to adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction, and her case will dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Missouri. (Docket No. 1 at 3). She alleges that defendant Bi-State Development is incorporated in Missouri and has its principal place of business in St. Louis. (Docket No. 1 at 2). Her complaint consists of a Court-provided civil complaint form, along with a number of attachments, which include: a letter to the Court, medical records, a petition for small claims court, medical bills, a letter from the Bi-State Development claims department, and a letter to Bi-State Development CEO John Nation.
Plaintiff's statement of claim, typed on the Court-provided civil rights complaint form, alleges that defendant Bi-State Development "may have encouraged" her "podiatrist to add fake,
Page 2
false, medical information" to her "medical file." (Docket No. 1 at 5). She also states that her cell phone is being monitored by the State of Wisconsin, and that two states, presumably meaning Wisconsin and Missouri, have collaborated to deny her claim, despite knowing their responsibility.
Plaintiff provides further factual allegations in the attachments to her complaint.1 She states that on October 9, 2017, she was at the Civic Center Transit Site, operated by defendant Bi-State Development. (Docket No. 1-1 at 1). She was on her way to the downtown library and asked a security guard employed by the Transit Site what bus she needed to take. The security guard directed her to the number 19 bus. As plaintiff headed toward that bus stop, she states that she encountered a man she describes as "homeless" sitting at the site. Plaintiff states that the man was acting "strange" and drinking from a green whiskey bottle concealed in a paper bag. Because the man was drinking from the bottle while it was still in the bag, plaintiff states that the bag had become wet, weakening the paper. This caused the bottle to fall from the paper bag and break against the "rock-hard concrete floor." Plaintiff alleges that a shard of broken glass hit the top of her right foot, causing severe pain. She states that this incident occurred on the premises of the Civic Center Transit Site.
Initially, plaintiff attempted to continue to the number 19 bus, but the pain forced her to stop and sit down. (Docket No. 1-1 at 2). At that point, she noticed that her foot was "bleeding profusely." Plaintiff went and spoke with a woman at the front desk, asking where she could file a complaint. The woman pointed to a back area, but first plaintiff had to use the restroom to clean the blood off her foot. This did not stop the bleeding, and blood "continued to gush out of" plaintiff's foot. Plaintiff alleges that a security guard said: "That's too much blood, we need to
Page 3
call an ambulance." Plaintiff states that she believes the guard said this because he was culpable in failing to "remove the danger from the Civic Center Transit Site."
An ambulance was called, though plaintiff states the Fire Department reached her first. A bandage was applied to her foot. The ambulance arrived, and plaintiff was escorted to the vehicle by two fire fighters. The ambulance drivers inquired as to whether she wanted to go to the hospital. The "female ambulance driver" advised her that a vein had been cut in her foot and that she might need sutures. Plaintiff states that she did not really want to go to the hospital, since she had no insurance, but that she decided to take care of her foot. The ambulance took her to Saint Louis University Hospital where a nurse cleaned the cut, numbed the area, and used two sutures to close the wound. (Docket No. 1-3 at 9). Plaintiff was also given an antibiotic.
Due to this injury, plaintiff states that she has suffered permanent damage to her foot. She claims continuing numbness, and also states she cannot let anything touch her foot, because the "slightest touch" causes her pain.
Plaintiff alleges that Bi-State Development is "responsible and culpable" for her damages. She states that Bi-State Development employs security guards to protect passengers using the public transit system. (Docket No. 1-3 at 10). She further claims the guards were negligent in allowing the "homeless man" to have the opportunity to injure her. She points out that drinking alcohol is prohibited at the Civic Center Transit Site and that the man who dropped the bottle should have been removed from the property. (Docket No. 1-3 at 17).
Elsewhere in the attachments to her complaint, plaintiff makes allegations that are not directly related to her foot injury. For instance, plaintiff has attached medical records along with a letter stating that the medical report includes "false information." (Docket No. 1-2 at 1). She alleges that her doctor submitted a fake medical report by recording that plaintiff had hammer
Page 4
toes and excessively pronated feet.2 Plaintiff vigorously denies these afflictions. Plaintiff also asserts that she is being surveilled by the State of Wisconsin,3 and that they may have interfered with her medical care. (Docket No. 1-2 at 1). She also intimates that the incident with the broken glass was not an accident, and that she was somehow singled out. (Docket No. 1-2 at 3; Docket No. 1-3 at 15).
Plaintiff seeks $78,000 for the permanent damage she alleged she suffered to her right foot. (Docket No. 1 at 5).
The Court received plaintiff's response to the order to show cause on September 5, 2018. The response consists of five typed pages. In her response, plaintiff states that her case should not be dismissed because defendant Bi-State Development is responsible for the damages she sustained to her foot. She states that the man who dropped the bottle that injured her foot was drinking alcohol, and alcohol is not allowed on Bi-State Development premises. (Docket No. 5 at 1). She further states that she is not a "Resident of Missouri" because she is "not on any lease in the State of Missouri, therefore, I am homeless." The last time she was "on a lease" was in Madison, Wisconsin. (Docket No. 5 at 2). Therefore, she asserts that this Court has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
Plaintiff also alleges that there is federal question jurisdiction because her case involves "Federal stalking laws." (Docket No. 5 at 4). Specifically, she cites the following statutes she believes are implicated in her case: 18 U.S.C. § 241;4 18 U.S.C. § 242;5 18 U.S.C. § 245;6 18
Page 5
U.S.C. § 249;7 18 U.S.C. § 1512;8 18 U.S.C. § 1513;9 and 18 U.S.C. § 2261A.10 Plaintiff alleges that her life, along with the lives of her children and grandchildren, has been threatened. She states that the incident at the Civic Center Transit Site was not an accident, but was an intentional and malicious attempt by the State of Wisconsin to force her to stop pursuing her claims.11
Much of plaintiff's response runs far afield from her initial complaint. The substance of her response is that she is the victim of an orchestrated effort by the State of Wisconsin to stop her from pursuing her federal claims there. On October 9, 2017, the day plaintiff injured her foot, she states she was on her way to the library to "print out evidence" in her favor. (Docket No. 5 at 5). While on this errand, a shard from a broken bottle cut her foot, an incident she attributes to an intentional act in which Bi-State Development participated. Plaintiff claims that she has received threatening text messages that are coming from a phone number with a Missouri area code. However, plaintiff insists the texts are actually coming from Wisconsin, which is using a Missouri number "as a disguise."
On September 7, 2018, plaintiff filed a document with the Court titled "Affidavit." (Docket No. 6). The document includes a picture of what appears to be plaintiff's feet. There is also a letter to the Court, in which plaintiff forcefully states that she does not have "hammer toes" or "severe pronation," and that to the contrary, she has "very attractive feet." Plaintiff indicates that the medical report stating she had hammer toes and pronation is a lie, and that the author of the report committed medical malpractice. She states that she has "inferred" that the false medical report is connected to the State of Wisconsin.
Page 6
Plaintiff brings this action against defendant Bi-State Development, alleging that Bi-State Development failed to prevent her foot injury by allowing an intoxicated man to remain on their premises. In subsequent filings, plaintiff has expanded upon this initial complaint. She is now alleging that the injury to her foot was the result of a conspiracy between the State of Wisconsin and Bi-State Development to prevent her from pursuing her federal claims against Target. Having carefully reviewed and liberally construed both plaintiff's complaint and her response to the Court's order to show cause, the Court must dismiss plaintiff's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
"Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto." Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). See also Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251...
To continue reading
Request your trial