Cynthia D. Biggs El v. Josh Shapiro, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed without prejudice the complaint of pro se plaintiff Cynthia D. Biggs El against multiple defendants arising from her medical treatment and dialysis care. The court held that many asserted claims lacked a private right of action or an adequate federal jurisdictional basis, granted the moving defendants’ motions to dismiss, denied certain motions as moot, and denied the plaintiff’s motions opposing dismissal.

Holdings

1. Federal criminal statutes, HIPAA, the Patient Self-Determination Act, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples do not provide the private causes of action asserted by plaintiff; absent a cognizable federal cause of action, the related claims did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
2. The complaint failed to state constitutional claims because plaintiff did not allege a viable implied damages remedy, state action, or facts connecting the defendants to a constitutional violation; the Ninth Amendment independently provides no source of individual constitutional rights.
3. A defamation claim under § 1983 requires defamation accompanied by a change or extinguishment of a right or status guaranteed by state law or the Constitution; plaintiff's allegations did not identify such a right or status.
4. The court lacked personal jurisdiction over Rodriguez because he was domiciled in Colorado and plaintiff alleged no facts showing purposeful availment, minimum contacts, or a connection between Rodriguez and Pennsylvania or the claims.
5. Dismissal without prejudice was warranted under Rule 12(b)(5) because plaintiff did not properly serve Livanta LLC with a summons and had not filed proof of service within the Rule 4 period.
6. Diversity jurisdiction was absent because the parties were not completely diverse, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint established federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on federal criminal statutes, medical malpractice, assault and battery, elder patient abuse, reckless endangerment, HIPAA, patient self-determination, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and other asserted theories.
2. Whether the constitutional claims and defamation claim stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or otherwise stated a plausible federal claim.
3. Whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant Javier Rodriguez.
4. Whether service of process on Livanta LLC was sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
5. Whether diversity jurisdiction existed.
6. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed