Joseph v. NYU Langone Medical Business Office, 1:21-cv-02140

Pro se plaintiff Anderson Joseph filed four consolidated actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Mount Sinai Queens, NYU Langone (Medical Business Office), and Queens Hospital Center alleging medical malpractice, discrimination, and requesting large monetary damages.
Allegations include: newborn kept seven days with abnormal symptoms (Jamaica Hospital); a trainee nurse caused excessive bleeding during a prenatal visit (Mount Sinai Queens/Queens Hospital Center occurrences dated Aug 30, 2018); a delayed delivery nearly killed a newborn who later required ER care (NYU-related claim dated Feb 17, 2019).
The Court granted in forma pauperis status but reviewed the complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Court treated claims as medical malpractice (state-law) and analyzed whether defendants acted “under color of state law” for § 1983 purposes; it found three hospitals are private and Joseph alleged no facts tying them to the state.
Court concluded it lacked federal jurisdiction: no state-action for § 1983 against private hospitals, no complete diversity (all parties appear New York citizens), and no viable federal-question claim based on the pleadings.
Result: complaints dismissed for failure to state a claim; leave to amend denied as futile; appeal IFP denied as not taken in good faith; plaintiff warned about sanctions for future frivolous filings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether private hospitals acted under color of state law for § 1983	Joseph alleges discrimination and malpractice by hospitals, invoking § 1983	Hospitals are private entities and Joseph pleads no facts showing state control, joint action, or public-function delegation	Dismissed: no state action; § 1983 claims against private hospitals fail
Whether federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over medical-malpractice claims	Joseph frames harms as constitutional/discriminatory and seeks federal relief	Claims are essentially state-law malpractice; parties share New York citizenship so no diversity; pleadings lack federal-question allegations	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (no diversity, no federal question)
Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend pro se complaints	Joseph seeks opportunity to replead	Defendants implicitly argue pleadings are deficient; Court assesses futility	Leave denied as futile because defects are substantive and not curable by repleading
Whether to warn/sanction for vexatious filings	Joseph has filed numerous recent suits; seeks IFP in these actions	Court must manage docket and may limit vexatious litigant filings	Court issued warning that future frivolous filings may lead to injunctions or other sanctions

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not assumed true on review)
Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (§ 1983 is a remedial vehicle, not a source of substantive rights)
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (when private entity’s actions are fairly attributable to the state)
Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (private conduct generally not actionable under § 1983)
Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193 (tests for attributing private-entity conduct to the state)
Sybalski v. Indep. Grp. Home Living Program, Inc., 546 F.3d 255 (state-action tests summarized)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (futility as a basis to deny leave to amend)
Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434 (definition of frivolous pleading)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (standard for good-faith appeals)