Mecquon J. Jones v. Ascension Living Lakeshore at Siena, Ascension All Saints, John Does 1–7, and Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants Mecquon J. Jones leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses his § 1983 action concerning the death of his mother at a nursing facility. The court concludes that Jones has not shown authority to represent the decedent’s estate, diversity jurisdiction is absent, and the cited federal nursing-home regulations do not create a private cause of action. The dismissal is entered under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), and the court assesses a filing-fee balance and a strike under § 1915(g).

Holdings

1. A plaintiff may not proceed pro se on behalf of a decedent's estate unless the plaintiff is the estate's sole beneficiary; an administrator who is not the sole beneficiary cannot represent the estate in court.
2. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act nursing-home regulations do not create a private cause of action, so Jones's alleged violations of those regulations did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
3. Diversity jurisdiction was absent because Jones alleged that he and the defendants were citizens of Wisconsin, defeating complete diversity.
4. The court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jones's state-law claims because the complaint did not establish original federal jurisdiction over any related claim.
5. The court granted Jones leave to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee, subject to payment of the full fee over time under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jones could proceed pro se with claims arising from injuries suffered by his deceased mother without alleging that he was the estate's personal representative and sole beneficiary.
2. Whether the complaint established federal-question jurisdiction through alleged violations of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act nursing-home regulations.
3. Whether the complaint established diversity jurisdiction.
4. Whether the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jones's state-law claims after concluding that the complaint did not state a claim within the court's original jurisdiction.
5. Whether Jones should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and whether the action should be dismissed at prisoner screening.

Disposition

dismissed