Monroe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_________________________________

GRANT H. MONROE,

Plaintiff,

v. 24-CV-29JLS(Sr)

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant.

_________________________________

DECISION AND ORDER

This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. John L. Sinatra,

Jr., in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), for all pretrial matters and to hear and report

upon dispositive motions. Dkt. #24.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging violations of the

Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395dd,

alleging that the attending staff at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

Emergency Room in Jamestown, New York, failed to provide an appropriate medical

screening examination and to stabilize his emergency medical condition. Dkt. ##1, 9, 15

& 16. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he was brought to the emergency room by

Jamestown Police on August 14, 2023 and escaped from the psychiatric ward before

he was quickly apprehended and returned for observation, evaluation, treatment and

care, including involuntary medication, before he was discharged, at which time he is

alleged to have stolen several vehicles and caused property damage. Dkt. #1.

In its answer to the complaint, defendant denies operating an emergency

room in Jamestown, New York and asserts as an affirmative defense that it did not

operate a hospital or emergency room facility in Jamestown, New York. Dkt. #23, ¶¶ 4

& p.6.

Following issuance of a Case Management Order setting a deadline for

plaintiff to file an amended complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an

amended complaint seeking to add a claim for common law medical negligence. Dkt.

#44. Plaintiff alleges that the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication was

an act of abuse and his subsequent discharge was premature and contributed to his

current incarceration. Dkt. #44. Plaintiff filed a substantially similar motion for leave to

file an amended complaint on September 29, 2025. Dkt. #47.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center has never owned or operated a hospital or

emergency room in Jamestown, New York. Dkt. #49-12, ¶ 7. More specifically, the

President and General Counsel of the UPMC Corporate & Captive Insurance Program

declares that University of Pittsburgh Medical Center “is a fictitious name registered with

the Pennsylvania Department of State, assumed by the non-profit corporation, UPMC,

which is incorporated in Pennsylvania” and has never owned or operated a hospital or

emergency room; owned leased or possessed any real estate or employed or

contracted with any individuals to provide medical care to patients in Jamestown, New

York. Dkt. #49-12, ¶¶ 9-10.

-2-

In opposition to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff reports that he was

informed that legal complaints against U.P.M.C. Chautauqua should be filed at

headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which is where he requested medical records

for his treatment on August 14, 2023. Dkt. #59. Plaintiff notes that he included an

address in Jamestown, New York as an alternate address for service of his summons

and complaint by the United States Marshals Service1 and requests an opportunity to

correct any error in service. Dkt. #59.

The Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to

afford plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended pleading which complied with Rule

15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #51.

Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. #53); motion

requesting medical records be entered into evidence (Dkt. #54); motion for leave to

amend his complaint (Dkt. #55); motion for an extension of time to respond to the

motion to dismiss and amend his complaint (Dkt. #57), and motion for an extension of

time to effect proper service of his complaint. Dkt. #58.

Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “the court

may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” In deciding whether to do so, the

1 The forms submitted by plaintiff for service by the United States Marshals Service

request service of the Summons and Complaint upon the University of Pittsburgh Medical

Center at 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and includes an alternate address for the

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center at 207 Foote Avenue, Jamestown, NY 14701. Dkt. #22.

-3-

Court applies the same analysis as required under Rule 15. Johnson v. Bryson, 851 F.

Supp.2d 688, 703 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); See Soler v. G&U, Inc., 86 F.R.D. 524, (S.D.N.Y.

1980) (“same standard of liberality afforded to motions to amend pleadings under Rule

15” is applied under Rule 21).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that a party may amend a pleading by leave

of court or by written consent of the adverse party. Leave to amend is to be "freely

granted" unless the party seeking leave has acted in bad faith, there has been an

undue delay in seeking leave, there will be unfair prejudice to the opposing party if

leave is granted, or the proposed amendment would be futile. Foman v. Davis, 371

U.S. 178, 182 (1962); State Teachers Retirement Bd. v. Fluor Corp., 654 F.2d 843, 856

(2d Cir. 1981); Fed. R. Civ. P.15(a). An amendment is futile if it cannot survive a

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 339 (2d Cir. 2000).

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, “a complaint must contain 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), quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Id. Application of this standard is “a context-specific task that requires the

reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.

-4-

As an initial matter, it appears possible that plaintiff has not correctly

identified the corporation responsible for providing care and treatment to him on August

14, 2023. While plaintiff’s medical records (Dkt. #54), denote “University of Pittsburgh

Medical Center,” the “UPMC Discharge Clinical Summary” is provided under the

auspices of “UPMC Chautauqua.” The Court notes that the public website indicates that

UPMC, located at 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, operates 40 hospitals,

including UPMC Chautauqua, located at 207 Foote Ave., Jamestown, NY 14701.

Accordingly, plaintiff is granted leave to add UPMC Chautauqua as a defendant in this

action.

“Under New York law, the requisite elements of proof in a medical

malpractice action are (1) a deviation or departure from accepted practice, and (2)

evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of injury or damage.” Brown v.

County of Jefferson, 20-CV-1192, 2021 WL 2941919, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. 2021).

“Accordingly, in order to state a claim for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must specify

the injuries he suffered and allege sufficient facts to demonstrate how his injuries were

caused by a deviation from the standard of care.” Id. While a hospital is generally liable

for the negligence or malpractice of its employees, it may not be liable when the

treatment is provided by an independent physician. Hill v. St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 N.Y.2d

72, 79 (1986). Thus, to the extent that plaintiff requests that certain medical providers

be included (Dkt. #53), he may also add them as defendants in his proposed amended

complaint so long as he can allege the requisite factual allegations to support a

plausible medical malpractice claim against them.

-5-

As the Court previously advised plaintiff, Rule 15(a) of the Local Rules of

Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff seeking to amend his complaint must attach an

unsigned copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion.

Furthermore, the proposed amended pleading must be a complete pleading

superseding and replacing the original pleading in all respects. No portion of the original

pleading or any allegations set forth in prior motions will be incorporated into the

amended pleading by reference. In other words, plaintiff is required to file a proposed

amended complaint that identifies every defendant and sets forth all of his claims and

the factual allegations that support such claims within the amended complaint.

Plaintiff shall file his motion to amend the complaint no later than February 13, 2026.

Given that plaintiff will be moving to amend his complaint, his request for an exention of

time to oppose defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #57), is denied as moot.

Any opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend shall be filed no later than

February 27, 2026. Defendant shall also advise whether it will accept service on behalf

of any proposed defendants or whether plaintiff will need to request service of any

additional defendants by the United States Marshals Service. In the interim, plaintiff’s

motion for an extension of time to effect service (Dkt. #58), is granted.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. #53), is denied without

prejudice pending resolution of plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. The Court

notes that any future motion to compel must be accompanied by an affidavit indicating

that plaintiff has requested the information at issue from the defendant and has

-6-

attempted to resolve any dispute regarding the requested discovery with defense

counsel before seeking assistance from the Court.

Plaintiff’s motion requesting that medical records be entered as evidence

(Dkt. #54), is denied as premature.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Buffalo, New York

January 6, 2026

s/ H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.

H. KENNETH SCHROEDER, JR.

United States Magistrate Judge

-7-