Rose v. Guanowsky, Civil Action 21-CV-0875

MEMORANDUM

JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL, J.

This matter comes before the Court by way of a Complaint (ECF No. 2) submitted by pro se Plaintiff James E. Rose, Jr., a regular, and prolific, litigant in this Court, against Glenn Guanowsky, Esq., Deputy General Counsel for Litigation and Risk Management with the Lehigh Valley Health Network (“LVHN”). Also before the Court is Rose's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1). For the following reasons, the Court will grant Rose leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Rose's Complaint in this action is a ten-page, single-spaced typed document that is largely not set forth in numbered paragraphs. The majority of Rose's Complaint attempts to set forth a chronological account of the events at issue by describing the content of approximately 12-15 different letters exchanged between Rose, Defendant Guanowsky, non-party Dr. Jennifer O. Langstengel, and other non-parties in the fall of 2020. (See ECF No. 2 at 2-5). Rose attached nearly forty pages of these letters as Exhibits to his Complaint. (See ECF No. 2-1 at 2-39.) Despite Rose's attempts to provide the Court with the necessary factual allegations and

background information in his case, the factual basis for Rose's claims is disorganized and unclear. The Complaint contains many long, confusing, narratives about Rose's medical treatment by Dr. Langstengel and what impact that may or may not have had on Rose's handling of retail theft charges he faced in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas.

However, having reviewed the Complaint and the attached letters in detail, the Court has discerned the following relevant factual background in this case. Initially, it appears that Dr. Langstengel, a doctor of internal medicine employed by LVHN, was Rose's personal physician for an unspecified period until approximately October or November of 2020. (ECF No. 2 at 2.) During the time that Dr. Langstengel treated Rose, she prescribed Rose several medications, including a prescription for irbesartan to treat Rose's high blood pressure. (Id.) However, at some point before October 22, 2020, Rose attempted to obtain a refill of his irbesartan prescription but he was informed by the pharmacist at Walgreens that an individual by the name of “Min” from Dr. Langstengel's office “had cancelled” his prescription. (Id.) It appears that as a result, Rose was left without his blood pressure medication for about four to five days leading up to October 22, 2020. (ECF No. 2-1 at 4.)

As the Court understands Rose's allegations, the fact that he was without his blood pressure medication for a period up to and including October 22, 2020 is relevant because Rose entered into a plea agreement on the retail theft charge on that date. Specifically, public records reflect that Rose entered a guilty plea on October 22, 2020 to one count of retail theft by under ringing in violation of 18 Pa. S. A. § 3939(a)(4). See Commonwealth v. Rose, MJ-31302-NT-0000399-2020 (C.P. Lehigh County). Rose alleges that because he was not on his blood pressure medicine during the October 22, 2020 proceedings in Lehigh County, he was “a hot mess[, ]” that he “did not have all [his] faculties[, ]” and that he was not of “normal mind” at the time. (ECF No. 2-1 at 4.)

Rose claims that he “was very, very dizzy” on that day and “got confused” during those proceedings - thinking that the charge against him was being dropped and that pleading to a summary offense meant he would only get “a citation, like a ticket.” (Id.) Rose contends that because he was not “of sound body and sound mind[, ]” he “ended up [p]leading guilty to a Summary Offense that [he] did not do.”^[1] (Id.)

A few weeks later, on or about November 3, 2020, Rose filed a motion in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. See Commonwealth v. Rose, CP-38-MD-0001962-2020, (C.P. Lehigh County). Shortly before he filed that motion, it appears that Rose contacted Dr. Langstengel by letter dated November 2, 2020 regarding “Blood Pressure Verification[.]” (ECF No. 2-1 at 4.) In that letter, Rose specifically asked Dr. Langstengel for “a statement . . . verifying that without that medication there is no way [he] can be mentally stable” and “verify[ing] that [he] was without [his] medicine during the course of this [October 22, 2020] Proceeding.” (Id.) After receipt of this letter, it appears that Dr. Langstengel informed Rose by letter dated November 10, 2020 that she would no longer continue treating him as a patient. (ECF No. 2 at 3.) Rose, who claims he did not understand why Dr. Langstengel was “kicking [him] out of the Practice[, ]” continued writing letters to Dr. Langstengel about her decision to terminate him as a patient and his prior request for a statement verifying the blood pressure medication issues. (ECF No. 2-1 at 5-8, 11.) Rose wrote directly to the CEO of LVHN on several occasions, and cc'd the CEO on several of his letters to Dr. Langstengel. (Id. at 9, 12.)

After several weeks of letters from Rose to Dr. Langstengel and the CEO of LVHN, Defendant Guanowsky, in his role as Deputy General Counsel for Litigation and Risk Management, sent a letter to Rose dated November 23, 2020. (Id. at 10.) In that letter, Guanowsky informed Rose that he was responding on behalf of LVHN's “Senior Leadership” with respect to Rose's request for a new primary care provider and explained that it was Rose's sole responsibility to find a new provider. (Id.) Guanowsky also advised Rose that he was “not to communicate further with members of Senior Leadership regarding these matters” and that any “further communication [would] be deemed harassment” requiring Guanowsky's office to take “necessary measures.” (Id.) Guanowsky's November 23, 2020 letter appears to have prompted Rose to send multiple letters to Guanowsky, Dr. Langstengel, and others - most of which assert Rose's belief that Guanowsky was attempting to infringe on Rose's First Amendment rights and his belief that he is being “mistreated” because he is Black.^[2] (See Id. at 13-19, 21-35.)

Rose contends that as a results of these events, he is now without a doctor to treat him for various illnesses. (ECF No. 2 at 5.) Rose claims that Defendant Guanowsky “had no legal

authority to write any threatening letters to” Rose, an elderly Black man, and that Guanowsky “displays . . . how White Supremacy and white Racism is enforced in Lehigh County, PA and in particular, at LVHN.” (Id. at 8.) Rose seeks an order against Defendant Guanowsky for “violating Plaintiff's Civil Rights” and seeks an award of $250, 000 in punitive damages and $250, 000 in nominal damages for these “flagrant Civil Rights Violations.” (Id.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court will grant Rose leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is not capable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, Rose's Complaint is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the complaint contains “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) (quotations omitted). “At this early stage of the litigation,' ‘[the Court will] accept the facts alleged in [the pro se] complaint as true,' ‘draw[] all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor,' and ‘ask only whether [that] complaint, liberally construed, . . . contains facts sufficient to state a plausible [] claim.'” Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774, 782 (7th Cir. 2015)). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As Rose is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F. 4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013)).

III. DISCUSSION

Rose repeatedly alleges that the Complaint in this case is “for Federal Civil Rights Violations[, ]” (see ECF No. 2 at 1, 2, 8), but he explicitly disclaims this action as one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Id. at 1) (“This is not a Claim Under Title 42 SS 1983[.]”) Rather, Rose seeks to bring claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 1986. (Id. at 2.) The Court address each in turn.

A. Rose's Claims Under § 1981

Section 1981 prohibits race discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) (“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”). This Reconstruction-era statute, along with several others, was enacted to effectuate the aims of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 796-97 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting that the legislative history of § 1981, derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and from the reenactment of Section 1 of the 1866 Act in 1870,...