Myart v. City of San Antonio

JAMES W. MYART JR., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, BAPTIST HOSPITAL SYSTEM, MATT STONE,CEO BAPTIST HOSPITAL SYSTEM, CORPORATELY AND INDIVIDUALLY;BAPTIST HOSPITAL SYSTEM PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY, JOHN DOE COMPANY,JACOB CORONAL, JOHN DOE SECURITY COMPANY, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-5,INDIVIDUAL AND EMPLOYMENT; EMPLOYEES OF JOHN DOES SECURITY COMPANY,JANE DOE, HEAD ER NURSE; AND JANE DOES 1-6, ER NURSES,ALL INDIVIDUALLY NAMED PERSONS SUED INDIVIDUALLYAND AS EMPLOYEES OF BAPTIST HOSPITAL SYSTEM IN THEIR CAPACITIESINDIVIDUAL AND EMPLOYMENT; Defendants.

SA-19-CV-00702-OLG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

December 23, 2019

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

To the Honorable Chief United States District Judge Orlando L. Garcia:

This Report and Recommendation and Order concerns the following dispositive and nondispositive motions: the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants VHS San Antonio Partners, LLC d/b/a Baptist Medical Center (misnamed as Baptist Hospital System) and Matthew Stone (misnamed as Matt Stone, CEO, Baptist Hospital System Corporately and Individually) [#3]; the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant City of San Antonio [#19]; Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for 90 Day Stay with Medical Evidence [#21]; and Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay and Various Notices to the Court [#38]. All pretrial matters in this case have been referred to the undersigned for disposition pursuant to Western District of Texas Local Rule CV-72 and Appendix C [#4]. The undersigned has authority to enter this recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [#3, #19] be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's claims against the unserved Defendants be dismissed sua sponte. The Court will also order that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for 90 Day Stay with Medical Evidence [#21] be DENIED and Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay and Various Notices to the Court [#38] be GRANTED IN PART.

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff James W. Myart, Jr. originally filed this action in the 45th Judicial District of Bexar County, Texas. (Orig. Pet. [#1-3] at 2-18.) Plaintiff's Original Petition named the following parties as Defendants: Baptist Hospital System; Matt Stone, CEO; Baptist Hospital System Private Security Company; John Doe Company; Jacob Coronal; John Doe Security Company; John and Jane Does 1-5; Head ER Nurse Jane Doe; Jane Does 1-6; and ER Nurses. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely accused him of assaulting one of the Jane Doe nurses and issued him a criminal trespass citation barring him from entering Baptist Hospital. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff asserted the following causes of action against Defendants: business disparagement, defamation, libel, slander, false imprisonment, assault, conspiracy to deny Plaintiff's constitutional rights, theft, and trade-secret misappropriation. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-58.) Plaintiff's Original Petition pleaded damages in the amount of $1,500,000.00 and sought a temporary and permanent injunction against Defendants prohibiting them from enforcing the criminal trespass citation. (Id. at ¶¶ 24, 59.)

The record reflects that a Bexar County judge granted Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order on May 30, 2019. (TRO [#1-3] at 23-24.) Plaintiff thereafter filed an Amended Petition in state court, adding as Defendants the City of San Antonio, Mayor Ron Nirenberg, Police Chief William McManus, Officer John Turner, Officer John Villareal, and Sgt. John Doe. (Am. Pet. [#1-3] at 60-68.) The Amended Petition, which remains the live pleading in this case, alleges that, despite the issued TRO, Baptist Hospital refused to treat Plaintiff and instead contacted SAPD to arrest him. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) The chronology of the subsequent events described in Plaintiff's pleadings is unclear, but it appears that Plaintiff's arrest did not result in criminal charges. Plaintiff claims he "was rejected" by the Office of the Magistrate and was taken instead to University Hospital for emergency medical treatment, because he apparently had need for further treatment. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that at some later point, presumably after his discharge from University Hospital, he attempted to return to Baptist Hospital for treatment, but treatment was again denied. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff asserts additional causes of action under Section 1983 against Defendants, alleging a violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at ¶ 15-18.) A Bexar County judge issued a second TRO on June 10, 2019. (TRO [#1-3] at 78-82.)

The City of San Antonio answered Plaintiffs' Amended Petition in state court and then removed this case to federal court. (Answer [#1-6] at 1-5; Notice of Removal [#1].) Defendants VHS San Antonio Partners (misnamed Baptist Hospital System) (hereinafter, "Baptist") and Matthew Stone (misnamed Matt Stone, CEO) (hereinafter, "Stone") consented to removal and promptly filed the Motion to Dismiss that is currently pending before the Court. (Consent [#1-5]; Mot. to Dismiss [#3].) The Court subsequently stayed this case pending the resolution of the threshold issues raised in Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Order [#5].) Under this Court's LocalRules, Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion was due on or before July 12, 2019. See Loc. R. CV-7(e) (responses to dispositive motions due within 14 days of motion's filing); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d) (adding three days to response deadline for service by mail and extending the deadline to Monday if the final date otherwise falls on a Sunday).

Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants' motion by the July 12, 2019 deadline. Instead, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a 90-day stay of all deadlines in this case due to Plaintiff's medical issues, including his deadline to respond to Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court held a status conference to address the requested stay on August 7, 2019. After hearing the arguments of Plaintiff at the conference, considering Plaintiff's substantial litigation activity in this and other cases leading up to the conference, and reviewing the medical evidence attached to Plaintiff's motion, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for a 90-day stay of the entire case, but stayed all discovery pending the resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss. (Order [#10].) In the same Order, the undersigned ordered that any party seeking to file any document in this case must first seek leave of court and ordered the City of San Antonio to file an amended answer or Rule 12 motion within 10 days of the Order. The City of San Antonio timely filed the motion to dismiss that is pending before the Court [#19].

Since this hearing and Order was issued, Plaintiff moved for leave to file another 90-day stay on September 25, 2019, which would further delay a ruling on Defendants' motions to dismiss [#21]. A few weeks later, Plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay and proceed with this case [#38]. In the interim, Plaintiff has also filed a number of appeals to the District Court (alleging bias, asking for reconsideration, and seeking recusal) and two appeals with the Fifth Circuit. The District Court denied Plaintiff's appeals and motions for recusal, and the FifthCircuit dismissed both of Plaintiff's interlocutory appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The undersigned now considers each of the four pending motions in this case in turn.

II. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for 90-Day Stay

and Motion to Lift Stay

Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to file another motion for a 90-day stay of this case due to his medical issues. Attached to the motion are over one hundred pages of medical evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff has been hospitalized numerous times in the past several months, has lost eyesight in his right eye, and suffers from end-stage renal disease. (Med. Records [#21-1].) Plaintiff also filed additional supplemental records in support of his motion. (Med. Records [#24, #26].) In his motion, Plaintiff accuses the undersigned and the District Court of not caring about his medical condition or believing him to be lying to the Court about his illnesses. To the contrary, Plaintiff has sufficiently documented that he suffers from serious medical conditions, which have at times required his hospitalization. Nonetheless, the Court will deny leave to file a second request for a 90-day stay for the following reasons.

This case is currently at the preliminary stage in which the Court is asked to decide threshold issues raised in two motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court reviews only the plausibility of Plaintiff's pleadings and does not consider any evidence. Accordingly, there is no need for discovery or any other action by Plaintiff, aside from a response to the pending motions to dismiss or supplemental pleading clarifying Plaintiff's allegations to demonstrate that they give rise to valid causes of action under the law. Plaintiff has filed responses to Defendants' motions (albeit late ones) [#27, #31, #35, #36]. Discovery has been stayed pending the resolution of Defendants' motions. Other than supplementing his pleadings or filing objections, nothing else is required of Plaintiff at this time and a stay of the entire case is unnecessary.

Moreover, even if discovery and other aspects of the litigation were proceeding (and thus a stay would have a bigger impact), the Court would deny the motion. Plaintiff has filed dozens of pleadings, motions, and appeals in this case and other cases pending before this Court¹ since Defendants filed their motions to dismiss. Plaintiff has demonstrated that, although his illness may be serious, he is capable of drafting hundreds of pages of court filings and actively pursuing multiple cases befo...