Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paschal v. University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine

November 22, 2010

CURTIS HYRAM PASCHAL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE, AND DR. MARK W. OCHS, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Conti, District Judge

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Curtis Hyram Paschal ("plaintiff" or "Paschal"), acting pro se, brings a complaint ("Complaint") (ECF No. 2) filed on April 15, 2010 against defendants University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine*fn1 ("University"), and Dr. Mark W. Ochs ("Ochs" and together with University, "defendants"). In the Complaint plaintiff states that jurisdiction is pursuant to:

42 U.S.C §1981 -- Prohibits race discrimination in contractual relationships.

42 U.S.C §1983 -- Prohibits discrimination "acting under color of state law".

42 U.S.C § 1359 dd, Emergency medical treatment and Active LaborAct.[sic]

42 U.S.C § 2000h-2-2 Denial of equal protection on account of race.

U.S. Patients [sic] Bill of Rights Act of 1999.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 14th Amendment- Equal Protection and Due Process clause. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff states that both plaintiff and defendant University*fn2 are residents of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Id. at ¶¶ 1-2.)

A. Allegations in the Complaint

Plaintiff asserts that on May 8, 1996, defendant*fn3 and he agreed upon a written contract for a $4,000 treatment plan, on which plaintiff made a $2000 payment. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.) Plaintiff maintains that, on June 9, 1996, Ochs inserted six dental implants in plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff claims defendants breached the contract by failing to complete all treatment stipulated in his plan, by denying plaintiff further treatment, including treatment in the emergency room on May 4, 2000. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 8. 10.) Plaintiff asserts that, on July 9, 2000 he had two infected implants removed at the University of Minnesota School of Dental Medicine; and on March 9, 2009, he had four infected implants removed at the University of West Virginia School of Dental Medicine. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 12.) Plaintiff contends that defendants‟ treatment caused him pain and emotional distress for which he was undergoing psychiatric treatment at the time he filed the Complaint. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.)

The Complaint sets forth a sole count of negligence ("count one"). There under plaintiff alleges:

16. Plaintiff an African-American was denied emergency room treatment by defendant.

17. Defendans [sic] breached their duty by denying plaintiff further teatment. [sic]

18. Breach of professional duty constitutes negligence in this jurisdiction.

19. Defendants negligence proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer damages. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-19.)

Plaintiff requests the court to adjudge defendants liable to him for his pain and suffering and for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff also requests the court to impose a permanent injunction on defendants based upon defendants‟ alleged breach of professional duty and deprivation of a racial minority plaintiff‟s rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and the federal laws. The only specific amount requested as damages is plaintiff‟s $350.00 filing fee. (Id. Wherefore Clause.)

B. Motion to Dismiss

On May 12, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss ("Motion") (ECF No. 6) the Complaint. Defendants seek dismissal of all claims asserted by plaintiff on the bases that the claims: 1) lack federal jurisdiction on both diversity and federal question grounds; (2) are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (3) fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and 4) are barred by doctrines of preclusion. On May 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a response to defendants‟ Motion (ECF No. 9) and a brief in support. (ECF No. 10.)

II. Legal Standards

A. Subject-Matter ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.