United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MCBRYDE DISTRICT JUDGE
for consideration the motions of defendants, Texas Health
Harris Methodist Hospital Fort Worth (misnamed as Texas
Health Memorial Hospital Fort Worth) ("Harris Fort
Worth") and Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital
(misnamed as Texas Health Memorial Hospital Arlington)
("THAM"), to dismiss. Plaintiff, Bobbie Jo Hefner,
has failed to respond to the motions, which are ripe for
ruling. The court, having considered the motions,
the record, and applicable authorities, finds that the
motions should be granted.
filed her original complaint on February 15, 2017,
complaining of events that apparently occurred on, and within
a few days of, February 4, 2015. Doc. 1. The gist of
plaintiff's complaint is that on February 4, 2015, she
was experiencing significant duress and not eating or
sleeping well, because her husband was scheduled for brain
surgery. Doc. 1 at 5, ¶ 18. She sought "simple
medical treatment" from Harris Fort Worth. Id.
She hoped to stay in the hospital over a night or two to
stabilize and get back to her husband and daughter.
Id. Harris Fort Worth told plaintiff that it did not
have room to provide treatment and that plaintiff needed to
be transferred to another facility. Id. at ¶
20. Plaintiff signed a number of papers and was transferred
to THAM, where she was "mistreated and
misinformed." Id. at ¶¶ 21-25.
does not allege any other specific facts, other than to say
that she has requested her medical records and believes that
they will show that her admission was fraudulent and that she
did not receive necessary treatment options. See,
e.g., Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 30-31.
asserts claims pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29
U.S.C. § 794, for violations of the Mental Health Code
(citing to various provisions of the Texas Health &
Safety Code) and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer
Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§
17.41-.63, for false imprisonment, medical negligence, common
law negligence, conspiracy, and gross negligence.
of the Motions
each assert that plaintiff has failed to state any claim upon
which relief can be granted. They request that all claims be
dismissed, or, alternatively, that the Rehabilitation Act
claim be dismissed and that the court decline to exercise
jurisdiction over the state law claims.
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in
a general way, the applicable standard of pleading. It
requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, " Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), "in order to
give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests, " Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation
marks and ellipsis omitted). Although a complaint need not
contain detailed factual allegations, the "showing"
contemplated by Rule 8 requires the plaintiff to do more than
simply allege legal conclusions or recite the elements of a
cause of action. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 & n.3.
Thus, while a court must accept all of the factual
allegations in the complaint as true, it need not credit bare
legal conclusions that are unsupported by any factual
underpinnings. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
679 (2009) ("While legal conclusions can provide the
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
the facts pleaded must allow the court to infer that the
plaintiff's right to relief is plausible. Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678. To allege a plausible right to relief, the
facts pleaded must suggest liability; allegations that are
merely consistent with unlawful conduct are insufficient.
Id. In other words, where the facts pleaded do no
more than permit the court to infer the possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has not shown that the pleader is
entitled to relief. Id. at 679. "Determining
whether a complaint states a ...