Showers v. Louisiana Healthcare Connections, Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TIMOTHY ONEAL SHOWERS
VERSUS
LOUISIANA HEALTHCARE
CONNECTIONS, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-1668
SECTION “O” (3)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff Timothy Showers filed the above-captioned matter asserting
claims against Louisiana Healthcare Connection, Inc. (“LHC”) for loss of wages,
severe emotional distress, negligence, and damages to operations of his business,
O&M Family Care.1 This court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why his claims
should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.2 Plaintiff filed a
response to the order to show cause, pleading federal question jurisdiction under the
Medicaid Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.3
I. 	Mandatory Screening Provisions
“There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil
matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the
action is not frivolous or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th
Cir. 1969). 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) thus directs that courts “shall dismiss [an in forma
pauperis plaintiff’s] case at any time” if the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim
1 R. Doc. 1 at 2.
2 R. Doc. 5.
3 R. Doc. 6.
Case 2:25-cv-01668-BSL Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 6

2
upon which relief may be granted or is determined to be frivolous.
A complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Berry v.
Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999) (quotation and citation omitted). This
standard, 	“when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989). A “complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when
it does not contain ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’” Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).Additionally, federal courts are
courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Perez v. McCreary, Veselka,
Bragg & Allen, P.C., 45 F.4th 816, 821 (5th Cir. 2022). As the Supreme Court has
explained:
The basic statutory grants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction
are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Section 1331 provides for
‘[f]ederal-question’ jurisdiction, § 1332 for ‘[d]iversity of citizenship’
jurisdiction. A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she
pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the
United States. She invokes § 1332 jurisdiction when she presents a
claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required
jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000.
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). Because “subject-matter jurisdiction
... involves a court's power to hear a case, [it] can never be forfeited or waived.” Id.
(quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002)). Federal courts thus “have
an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists,
even in the absence of a challenge from any party[.]” Id. (citing Ruhrgas AG v.
Case 2:25-cv-01668-BSL Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 6

3
Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). “If the court determines at any time that
it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3).
II. 	Analysis
Construed generously, Plaintiff brings claims under § 1983 for alleged
violations of the Medicaid Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.
A. 	The Medicaid Act
Plaintiff brings a claim under the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396(a)(8), for
failure to provide medical assistance with reasonable promptness.4 Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1396(a)(8), a State plan for medical assistance must “provide that all
individuals wishing to make application for medical assistance under the plan shall
have 	opportunity 	to 	do 	so, 	and that 	such 	assistance 	shall 	be 	furnished with
reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.”
Plaintiff’s submissions indicate that he is a principal of O&M Family Care,
LLC (“O&M”), a facility that sought licensure as a Behavioral Health Services
provider.5 Plaintiff disputes whether O&M owes LHC reimbursement relative to an
alleged overpayment.6 The record includes multiple communications between O&M
and LHC relative to the existence and extent of the alleged overpayment. Plaintiff’s
§ 1896(a)(8) claim is based on the allegation that he “repeatedly requested assistance
4 R. Doc. 6, ¶¶ 1–3.
5 R. Doc. 6-3 at 2.
6 Id. at 8.
Case 2:25-cv-01668-BSL Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 6

4
from Louisiana Healthcare Connections (“LHC”) from 2019 through 2025.”7 Plaintiff
has not, however, provided any allegation suggesting that he is Medicaid applicant
seeking “medical assistance” under § 1396(a)(8). As the Fifth Circuit has observed,
the “reasonable promptness clause is clearly intended to benefit ‘eligible individuals.’”
Romano v. Greenstein, 721 F.3d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Thus, to
the extent that § 1983 permits a claim based on a violation of § 1396(a)(8), it does not
extend to the billing dispute between O&M and LHC. Plaintiff’s Medicaid Act claim
is thus frivolous.
B. 	Fourteenth Amendment
Plaintiff also brings a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment for violation of
due process.8 The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend.
XIV. “A procedural due process claim consists of two elements: (i) deprivation by state
action of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property, and (ii) inadequate state
process.” Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230, 236 (2023) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff has not alleged that he has been deprived of a protected interest. He
attached a letter from LHC notifying O&M Family Care of an overpayment of
$1,728,377.68 for ineligible claims.9 Plaintiff has also attached an email chain
relative to whether O&M Family Care was licensed and authorized to provide
7 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 2.
8 Id. ¶ 1.
9 R. Doc. 6-3 at 5.
Case 2:25-cv-01668-BSL Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 4 of 6

5
services.10 LHC first notified Plaintiff that O&M Family Care’s license had expired.11
Plaintiff responded by attaching a new license.12 LHC informed Plaintiff that it would
authorize requests for services.13 Liberally construed, Plaintiff appears to allege that
O&M Family Care was properly licensed and not liable for the overpayment of
ineligible claims by LHC. Yet there are no specific factual allegations that state action
deprived O&M of property through inadequate process. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state
any non-frivolous procedural due process claim.
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has not raised any non-frivolous claim implicating federal question
jurisdiction. 	He does not allege (nor does the record support) diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
It 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	be 	DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14
days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain
error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served
10 R. Doc. 6-2 at 2.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 3.
13 Id. at 4.
Case 2:25-cv-01668-BSL Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 5 of 6

6
with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996)
(en banc) superseded by statute on other grounds.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17 th day of November, 2025.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01668-BSL Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 6 of 6