Flores v. Medicaid

District of Columbia

Flores v. Medicaid

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedApril 23, 2013

DocketCivil Action No. 2013-0546

StatusPublished

This text of Flores v. Medicaid (Flores v. Medicaid) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flores v. Medicaid, (D.D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT 0F COLUMBIA AFR 2 3 2313 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy courts forthe District of Co|umb|a

XAVIER FLORES, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) f

v. ) Civil Act1on No. f /*5 ) MEDICAID, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court consolidates five complaints

submitted by the plaintiff on March 25, 2013 and March 26, 2013.

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaints, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5 19, 520 (l972). A plaintiff need only provide a "short and plain statement of [his] claim showing that [he is] entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), that "give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erz`ckson v. Para’us, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (intemal quotation marks omitted). A complaint is subject to dismissal, however, if it fails to "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);

see Wz`llz`ams v. Dz'llon Cnty. Sherz`yj”’s Dep’t, No. 4:13-90, 2013 WL 1185836, at *2 (D.S.C. Feb.

19, 2013) (applying Iqbal to the initial screening of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)),

adopted, 2013 WL 1180726 (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 2013).

The plaintiff purports to bring these actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Each complaint asserts an unspecified right under the ADA and alleges that the plaintiff has been denied a service or benefit. Wholly absent from each complaint are factual allegations from which the Court may make a "reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Even if the Court were to afford the plaintiff "the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged," Kowal v. MCI Commc ’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. l994), the complaints fail to

adequately state a claim under the ADA.

The Court will grant plaintiff s applications to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. An Order

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this same date.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT 0F COLUMBIA AFR 2 3 2313 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy courts forthe District of Co|umb|a

XAVIER FLORES, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) f

v. ) Civil Act1on No. f /*5 ) MEDICAID, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court consolidates five complaints

submitted by the plaintiff on March 25, 2013 and March 26, 2013.

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaints, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5 19, 520 (l972). A plaintiff need only provide a "short and plain statement of [his] claim showing that [he is] entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), that "give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erz`ckson v. Para’us, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (intemal quotation marks omitted). A complaint is subject to dismissal, however, if it fails to "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);

see Wz`llz`ams v. Dz'llon Cnty. Sherz`yj”’s Dep’t, No. 4:13-90, 2013 WL 1185836, at *2 (D.S.C. Feb.

19, 2013) (applying Iqbal to the initial screening of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)),

adopted, 2013 WL 1180726 (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 2013).

The plaintiff purports to bring these actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Each complaint asserts an unspecified right under the ADA and alleges that the plaintiff has been denied a service or benefit. Wholly absent from each complaint are factual allegations from which the Court may make a "reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Even if the Court were to afford the plaintiff "the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged," Kowal v. MCI Commc ’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. l994), the complaints fail to

adequately state a claim under the ADA.

The Court will grant plaintiff s applications to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. An Order

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this same date.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Flores v. Medicaid, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-medicaid-dcd-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack