Daniel McKee v. Neil Duplantier, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana declines to adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Daniel McKee’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court finds that the pro se allegations support a colorable claim under EMTALA and grants leave to amend to add that claim. The court denies the plaintiff’s consolidated motion seeking a venue transfer, protective order, preliminary injunction, and sanctions.

Holdings

1. At the pleading stage, allegations that the plaintiff presented to a hospital with acute medical needs, required substantial intervention and post-discharge care, and was discharged without the required care were sufficient to support a colorable EMTALA claim and federal question jurisdiction.
2. The court declined to adopt the recommendation to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted the plaintiff leave to amend to add his EMTALA claim.
3. Transfer to the Middle District of Louisiana was denied because the plaintiff did not establish that the action might have been brought there or show good cause based on convenience and the interests of justice.
4. The preliminary-injunction request was premature because defendants had not been served or shown to have notice; the protective-order request was denied without prejudice for failure to satisfy Rule 26(c)'s meet-and-confer requirement; and the sanctions request was denied as procedurally improper and premature.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint alleged a colorable federal claim under EMTALA sufficient to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction at the pleading stage.
2. Whether the court should adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether venue should be transferred from the Eastern District of Louisiana to the Middle District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction before defendants had been served.
5. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a protective order without the Rule 26(c) certification that he had conferred or attempted to confer with affected parties.
6. Whether the plaintiff's Rule 11 sanctions request was procedurally proper and ripe.

Disposition

other