Foules et al v. Jackson Park Hospital
| Latrice Foules and Leo D Brown, III |
| Jackson Park Hospital |
| 1:2021cv06778 |
| December 17, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Matthew F Kennelly |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 23, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 ENTERED JUDGMENT. Mailed notice. (mma, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Pro se plaintiffs Latrice Foules and Leo Brown III have sued Jackson Park Hospital claiming that it violated their constitutional rights. They have asked to proceed in forma pauperis. For this reason the Court has reviewed their complaint to determine if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 USC 1915(e)(2). The plaintiffs allege that they (or perhaps just one of them) was inappropriately discharged by Jackson Park Hospital on 9/30/2021 despite having adverse health conditions and without proper assessment or testing. If that is so then plaintiffs may have a viable state-law claim for negligence against the hospital and/or its personnel. But these allegations do not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. No constitutional rights are at issue because Jackson Park Hospital is a private institution; the only conceivably applicable constitutional provisions apply only to governmental personnel and entities and not to private institutions. In addition there is no diversity of citizenship (which if it existed might allow for federal court jurisdiction) because all of the parties are from the same state - namely Illinois. The Court grants the plaintiffs' applications to proceed in forma pauperis #4 #5 but denies their motion for attorney representation #6 and also directs the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiffs wish to pursue their claims they will have to file their case in state court. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (mma, ) |
| Filing 6 MOTION by Plaintiffs Leo D Brown, III, Latrice Foules for attorney representation (rp, ) |
| Filing 5 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Leo D Brown, III for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (rp, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Latrice Foules for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (rp, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Latrice Foules (rp, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (rp, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Leo D Brown, III, Latrice Foules (rp, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (rp, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (rp, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
