The opinion of the court was delivered by: James F. McClure, Jr. United States District Judge
Before the court are several motions filed by all named defendants requesting dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6) and 41(b). In the alternative, defendants move for a more definite statement under F.R.C.P. 12(e). Because plaintiff's unintelligible complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to support our subject matter jurisdiction, we will dismiss the complaint and grant the plaintiff leave to amend within twenty days. Failure to amend within twenty days will result in dismissal of this action.
On September 27, 2006, the plaintiff filed pro se this instant matter against defendants Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hospital, Laurel Health System, Guthrie Health Clinic L.T.D., Gregory A. Cetton, M.D. ("Cetton"), Lisa Lynelle Harpst ("Harpst"), M.D., Pennsylvania College of Technology, and Tioga Health Care Providers, Inc.*fn1 Plaintiff lists each defendant and himself as residents of Pennsylvania. Writing in stream of consciousness fashion, the plaintiff alleges that on May 14, 2006, he experienced episodes of vomiting and diarrhea. He checked himself into defendant Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hospital for treatment, and was released into his son's custody several days later on May 17, 2006.
Although it is difficult to discern from plaintiff's disorganized, rambling complaint what exactly happened during his stay at the hospital, it seems as though he was x-rayed, given an endoscopic procedure, and also received a colonoscopy. He alleges that several students from Pennsylvania College of Technology were present during his colonoscopy. Although plaintiff concedes he gave the doctors permission to perform the colonoscopy, and that he further gave the students permission to watch the examination, he allegedly told the doctors that he believed his whole experience at the hospital had been a staged "teaching experience" for the students. He states that after making such a comment, he received a lucidity test from Doctor Cetton. Shortly afterwards, plaintiff threw ice water on those surrounding his bed, and was later allegedly threatened by a hospital social worker before he was released from the hospital. Plaintiff alleges that defendants impermissibly kept him at the hospital for four days, not allowing him to leave until his son had arrived to pick him up. He also seems to suggest that defendants drugged him, which caused hallucinations.
Based on these allegations, plaintiff avers that "irreparable brain damage has been done to the plaintiff." Complaint, Rec. Doc. No. 1, p.4. He asserts that defendants intentionally denied him "his civil rights, medicare rights, veteran rights and patient's rights" by submitting him to unwanted medical procedures, and by holding him against his wishes so that students from Pennsylvania College of Technology could receive "hands on" experience. Id. at 2. Plaintiff requests that defendants hand over documents that would be relevant to his stay at the hospital.
The defendants have filed several motions requesting that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. Defendants Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hospital, Laurel Health System, and Tioga Health Care Providers, Inc. move to dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and also move to strike plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with F.R.C.P. 8(a)'s pleading requirements. Defendant Pennsylvania College of Technology likewise makes these motions, and also moves under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(e), asserting that plaintiff fails to state a cause of action and lacks a definite statement. Defendants Cetton, Harpst, and Guthrie Clinic also filed F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(e) motions. All defendants filed a F.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion arguing that plaintiff failed to serve the parties properly with his complaint. Finally, all defendants except Pennsylvania College of Technology filed a F.R.C.P. 41(b) motion requesting involuntary dismissal of plaintiff's complaint because plaintiff failed to file a certificate of merit as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3.
Plaintiff has filed several responses to these motions, which also are disorganized and rambling. Plaintiff suggests in his responses that his claim is one against unlawful search and seizure and invasion of privacy. He also states that social security and veteran's law is somehow implicated in this case. He also alleges that Pennsylvania College of Technology is somehow affiliated with the hospital. Finally, he realleges that he was given hallucinogenic drugs without his knowledge. He urges that discovery is necessary and dismissal would be premature.
If a party asserts several objections and defenses to a complaint, including a F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) defense for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, "the cases are legion stating that the district court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge first because if it must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the accompanying defenses and objections become moot and do not need to be determined by the judge." 5B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1350 at 154-55 (2004); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, federal question and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction are the two typical ways in which a plaintiff can establish subject matter jurisdiction.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) may make either a facial or factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). If the motion makes a facial attack and argues the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction, then the court must consider all the allegations in the complaint as true. Id. If a party makes a factual challenge asserting there are no facts, alleged or otherwise, that would support subject matter jurisdiction, then the court may inquire into facts outside the pleadings and the plaintiff's complaint enjoys no presumptive truthfulness. Id.
When considering either type of subject matter jurisdictional challenge, the court must construe a complaint broadly and liberally, particularly when dealing with a pro se plaintiff. 5B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1350 at 180-81 (2004). Nevertheless, because the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction is so paramount to the integrity of the federal judicial system, courts will not give credit to mere conclusory allegations. Id. at 181-85. Courts that have found a plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction may dismiss the complaint and grant plaintiff leave to amend within a prescribed period of time. Id. at 203-4. Failure to meet that prescribed time period, however, may result in entry of final judgment. See John Birch Soc. v. Nat'l Broad. ...