Newton v. Compass Health Network
| Decision Date | 15 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:22-CV-239 AGF |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | ELROY G. NEWTON, Plaintiff, v. COMPASS HEALTH NETWORK, et al., Defendants. |
Self-represented plaintiff Elroy G. Newton brings this civil action against the Compass Health Network, Kevin Schmidt DDS, Lisa Barnes Jane Does 1 and 2 and Unknown Office Supervisor. Before the Court are plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to appoint counsel. Having reviewed the motion to proceed without prepayment of the required filing fees and costs and the financial information submitted in support, the Court will grant the motion and waive the filing fee in this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, after reviewing the complaint, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter. As such, the Court will require plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3).
Plaintiff filed the instant civil action on February 25, 2022. He claims that he is bringing this action pursuant to the following federal laws: “Title 18 U.S.C. § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law;” Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 - “Conspiracy Against Rights;” Title 18 U.S.C. § 245 “Federally Protected Activities;”- Title 18 U.S.C. § 248 “Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances;” Federal Trade Commission Act; Section 5: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practice, Fraud, Extortion, Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
Plaintiff a resident of St. Charles, Missouri, brings this action alleging violations of his civil rights against the following defendants: Compass Health Network; Dentist Kevin Schmidt Lisa Barnes; Jane Does 1-2 and Unknown Office Supervisor.
In his “Statement of Claim, ” plaintiff alleges a dispute with Wentzville Dental, a dental office he was referred to by Compass Health.[1] Plaintiff purports that in mid-December 2019, he called Wentzville Dental to make an appointment to see the dentist, Dr. Schmidt, because he had two teeth causing him pain. He claims he spoke to a receptionist at the dentist office who called herself Amber who made the appointment for him to see the dentist after his doctor appointment at 8:00 a.m. on February 18, 2020. However, when he arrived at the dentist, he was told that he did not have an appointment on file. He asked “where Amber” was, and the receptionist at the office told him that she worked at a different office, but even if she had scheduled his appointment on February 18, 2020, the receptionist would have seen it in her computer. Plaintiff's appointment was rescheduled by the receptionist for February 26, 2020.
Plaintiff states that when he arrived at Wentzville Dental to check in for his appointment on February 26, 2020, he was checked in by the same receptionist from February 18, 2020. The dental assistant did plaintiff's initial assessment, and then plaintiff saw Dr. Schmidt, who suggested removal of his top and bottom teeth and replacement of them with dentures. Plaintiff states that he asked for removal of the top teeth only, and the dentist told him that the cost would be $27.00 for the extractions and $950.00 for the dentures. Plaintiff was told by the dental assistant on February 26, 2020, that at that time of service he would be obligated to pay for a portion of the cost, $450.00. Plaintiff claims he scheduled the extractions for March 3, 2020, as well as a follow-up for the dentures on March 17, 2020, at 8:00 a.m. Plaintiff asserts that when he arrived at Wentzville Dental on March 3, 2020, at 12:15 p.m., he checked in and sat in the waiting room. A few minutes later, the receptionist called plaintiff to the window and purportedly told him that there was an outstanding bill of $4.00 from plaintiff's prior medical visits. Plaintiff claims that she asked him whether he wanted to pay the balance. Plaintiff explained that he did not have an extra $4.00 that day. She said, “OK, ” and plaintiff returned to his seat.
Plaintiff alleges that a few moments later, the receptionist again called him to the window. She purportedly asked whether he had the $27.00 for his extraction cost that day. Plaintiff states that he said yes and sat back down. He claims that the receptionist again called him to the window and said that if he failed to pay the $4.00 amount, he could not see the dentist that day. Plaintiff does not include his response; however, he claims that that the receptionist said she would have to talk with her supervisor. Although the dental assistant came to get plaintiff and took him to the dental chair, plaintiff asserts that the dental assistant asked him for the extra $4.00 after taking his blood pressure. Plaintiff alleges that at this point, the receptionist who had initially turned him away from receiving an appointment on February 18, 2020, came into the dental room and told him he needed to pay the $4.00 prior to receiving dental services.
Plaintiff claims he told the two individuals that he had a payment plan relating to the $4.00 worked out with the medical department. The dental assistant suggested maybe the dental office could provide partial service at the visit; however, the receptionist told plaintiff that she had previously told him at his prior visit that if he failed to pay the $4.00, he would not be provided service. The dental assistant apparently then told plaintiff that she had overheard the receptionist state this to plaintiff at his prior visit. Plaintiff told both women that they were lying. The receptionist then told plaintiff he would not be seen today. Plaintiff left the dental office and went to the medical department.
Plaintiff claims he explained what had occurred to the secretary in the medical department. He allegedly told the secretary that he would like to make payment arrangements so he could receive some help with his teeth. Plaintiff asserts that the secretary began making payment arrangements when she stopped and stated, “I forgot, we only make payment arrangements for people who owe more than fifty dollars.” She then told plaintiff she would call someone to override the situation. Plaintiff states that someone showed up to “work out the situation internally.” This person purportedly found out the debt was from 2017-2018 and stated that she wanted plaintiff to receive the dental service. Plaintiff states that he was in the medical department not more than 15 minutes before the issue was worked out.
Plaintiff then went back to the dental office to reschedule his appointment. The receptionist told plaintiff that the only appointment he could make would be to take out two teeth at a time. As this was a different kind of appointment than he had been offered previously, plaintiff requested the same kind of appointment that would cut the cost to $27.00. The receptionist insisted that such an appointment did not exist. Plaintiff finally agreed to the appointment type offered by the receptionist. However, he wanted to make all the appointments necessary while he was at the office on that date. The receptionist told plaintiff she could only make one appointment at a time without checking with her supervisor or a dentist.
Plaintiff has attached to his complaint a document titled, “Compass Health Network Title VI Complaint Form.” Plaintiff states in his complaint document as follows: “I felt discrimination from the 3 main people I came in contact with and these people are listed as the two receptionist[s] the dental assistant and their supervisor which would make 4.”
For relief, plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
Plaintiff appears to be complaining about the type of service he received from Compass Health Network and one of its dental offices, Wentzville Dental. He has provided to the Court one of the “inserts” from Compass Health Network's website, noting the “caring approach” advertised by Compass Health. However plaintiff states he did not receive such an approach. As noted above, he has named as defendants in this action: Compass Health Network; Dentist Kevin Schmidt; Nurse Lisa Barnes; Jane Does 1-2 and Unknown Office Supervisor.
“In every federal case the court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction before it turns to the merits of other legal arguments.” Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 445 F.3d 1046, 1050 (8th Cir. 2006). The Court has the duty to determine its jurisdiction and raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, if necessary. See City of Kansas City, Mo. v. Yarco Co., Inc., 625 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir. 2010). The Court must dismiss any action over which it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction to hear cases involving the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and cases where diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If this Court lacks both diversity of citizenship and federal question jurisdiction, the case is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Ct. of Spirit Lake Indian Rsrv., 495 F.3d 1017, 1020-24 (8th Cir. 2007) ().
Plaintiff's complaint fails to establish this Court's jurisdiction under either basis. The Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over cases where the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from the citizenship of each defendant, and where the amount in controversy is more than $75, 000. Ryan ex rel. Ryan v. Schneider Nat. Carriers Inc., 263...
To continue reading
Request your trial