Plaintiff further alleges that employees of the hospital
called and caused the two defendant Chicago police officers,
acting on behalf of the City of Chicago, to cause plaintiff at
the hospital to be wrongfully assaulted about his face and
body, and to have plaintiff placed in handcuffs and falsely
and wrongly imprisoned, and that they prevented plaintiff from
going about his normal business and obtaining proper medical
care; all without cause or provocation.
Thereafter, said police officers forcefully and without
cause kept plaintiff in handcuffs and removed him from the
hospital to a nearby police station, where he was placed in
jail for a number of hours, and later released on bond.
Plaintiff seeks $175,000.00 in damages from Provident
CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Where a claim is alleged to "arise under" the Constitution
and Amendments thereto, a United States District Court must
assume jurisdiction to determine whether the complaint states
a claim upon which relief can be granted, provided that the
claim is not frivolous but arguable, Bell v. Hood,
327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); Montana-Dakota
Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co.,
341 U.S. 246, 71 S.Ct. 692, 95 L.Ed. 912 (1951), and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $10,000.00.*fn2 Giancana v. Johnson,
335 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1001, 85
S.Ct. 718, 13 L.Ed.2d 702. Where, as here, jurisdiction
depends upon subject matter, the question whether jurisdiction
exists should not be confused with the question whether the
complaint states a valid cause of action. The latter involves
a decision on the merits; the former does not. A claim should
not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless it appears,
to a legal certainty, that the claim is wholly insubstantial
and frivolous so far as the Constitution is concerned. Bell v.
Hood, supra; Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 83 S.Ct. 1441,
10 L.Ed.2d 605 (1963).
Although plaintiff's claim against Provident Hospital for
damages under the Fourteenth Amendment appears rather
insubstantial, experience teaches that the wiser and better
practice is for the Court to assume jurisdiction over this
cause for the purpose of determining whether Count I states a
cause of action against Provident under the Constitution.
Wheeldin v. Wheeler, supra.
Although equitable actions have been permitted to be brought
to enforce rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment,
e. g., Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County,
377 U.S. 218, 84 S.Ct. 1226, 12 L.Ed.2d 256 (1964), it has
consistently been held that the Constitutional Amendments are
not self-executing as far as civil actions for damages are
concerned. Wheeldin v. Wheeler, supra; Bell v. Hood,
71 F. Supp. 813 (S.D.Cal. 1947).
But assuming, arguendo, that an action for damages "arising
under" Amendments to the United States Constitution can be
brought against an individual or a corporation, see, Wheeldin
v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 653-667, 83 S.Ct. 1441 (1963)
(opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan); Nash v. Air Terminal
Services, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 545 (E.D.Va. 1949); clearly no
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is presented here.
It is elementary that in order to establish a violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment, there must be "state action" which
results in a deprivation of a right,
privilege or immunity protected by that Amendment. Provident
Hospital is a private institution. Nowhere is it alleged that
it is involved with official agencies to such a "significant
extent", Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715,
81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961), that its actions are to be
judged by constitutional standards. Compare, Simkins v. Moses
H. Cone Memorial Hospital, 323 F.2d 959 (4th Cir. 1963), cert.
denied, 376 U.S. 938, 84 S.Ct. 793, 11 L.Ed.2d 659, (Hospital
receiving Federal funds under Hill-Burton Act); Smith v.
Holiday Inns of America, Inc., 336 F.2d 630 (6th Cir. 1964,
(motel erected on land purchased in city redevelopment project
from city housing authority, which developed program with
city, state and federal funds, and imposed continuing
controls); Todd v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee, 223 F. Supp. 12
(N.D.Ill. 1963), rev'd on grounds of mootness, 332 F.2d 243
(7th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 914, 85 S.Ct. 880, 13
L.Ed.2d 800 (city participation in vocational training
program); Girard College Trusteeship, 391 Pa. 434,
138 A.2d 844 (1958), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 570, 78 S.Ct. 1383, 2
L.Ed.2d 1546 (administration of charitable trust transferred
from public to private control); Clark, Charitable Trusts, The
Fourteenth Amendment, And the Will of Stephen Girard, 66 Yale
L.J. 979 (1957).
Nor is it alleged that hospital employees participated
jointly or in concert with police officers in a common scheme
to deprive plaintiff of his constitutionally protected rights.
The mere fact that hospital employees requested Chicago police
officers to remove plaintiff from the premises, without more,
is insufficient either to constitute "state action" on the
part of the Hospital in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment,
or to attribute to the Hospital any alleged subsequent
wrongdoing on the part of public officials. Compare, Griffin
v. State of Maryland,