Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:26-CV-00128-MEO-WCM
SHERIF ANTOUN PHILIPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL, INC., et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and For
Prefiling Injunction (Doc. No. 18). For the reasons explained below, the Court will
grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is further cautioned against filing
additional frivolous or improper actions in this District.
I. BACKGROUND
This action is
pro se Plaintiff’s ninth lawsuit arising out of the suspension and
revocation of his medical staff privileges at Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. and
subsequent related litigation.1 (Doc. No. 19 at 3–10). In this case, Plaintiff purports
to bring claims against Defendants Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc., David
Creech, Jay Salsman, Michael Berman, and Daniel Berman based on alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act,
the U.S. Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1 at 1). Among other things,
1 The Court will refer to relevant portions of the procedural history. Defendants’
memorandum in support of their motion provides a more complete procedural history.
See (Doc. No. 19 at 3–10).
Case 3:26-cv-00128-MEO-WCM Document 34 Filed 05/19/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Plaintiff appears to be seeking reconsideration of various rulings by state and other
federal courts.
Id. at 2–11. Plaintiff’s Complaint is silent as to venue. Concerning
jurisdiction, the Complaint states:
The Eastern District Court of North Carolina botched the
the [sic] plaintiff’s claims before And [sic] even the plaintiff
was forbidden to file any claims over there. All of [sic] the
plaintiff is asking for a fair trial and to follow the law as
prescribe [sic]. So plaintiff is seeking the Western District
Court of NC away from the friendly neighborhood court
where failure to state a claim (Rule 12), Statue of
limitations, and lack of Jurisdiction pertained only to the
defendants[.]
(Doc. No. 1 at 2).
Plaintiff’s allegations focus on events occurring in Guam and the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
Id. at 2–10. The Complaint does not mention any events
occurring in this District nor does it allege that Plaintiff or any Defendant resides
here.
Id. Rather, based on the summons, the individual Defendants reside in either
Guam or the Eastern District of North Carolina, and Defendant Hospital is located
in the Eastern District of North Carolina. (Doc. No. 3). In his Complaint, Plaintiff
further alleges that his “state of domicile is Florida.” (Doc. No. 1 at 2).2
Plaintiff concludes his Complaint by stating:
Guam Courts botch [sic] plaintiff’s claims where the
plaintiff was treated in discriminatory matter as ProSe and
breaching his constitutional right for fair trial and was
named vexatious litigant without evidence. Even the Guam
Courts acted without jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s
complaint honored the local lawyer’s transgression and
looting & garnishing the plaintiff’s money, modifying the
core of plaintiff’s claim against the local lawyer and the
plaintiff’s claim was denied due to lack of juristiction [sic].
2 Plaintiff lists a Guamanian return address on the summons.
See (Doc. No. 3).
Case 3:26-cv-00128-MEO-WCM Document 34 Filed 05/19/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Also, enforce Rule 21 to transfer the plaintiff’s claim out of
the Guam Courts for the interest of justice. Follow the law
as prescribed and stop the creativity and lawyer gimmicks
. . .
(Doc. No. 1 at 11).
II. DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for improper venue. (Doc. No. 19–
22).3 In his opposition, Plaintiff does not respond to Defendants’ argument regarding
venue.
See (Doc. Nos. 23 & 24).
Under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may
dismiss a case for improper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). Further, 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a) provides that when venue is improper, the district court “shall dismiss, or if
it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which
it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
“When venue is challenged, the court must determine whether the case falls
within one of the three categories set out in § 1391(b).”
Atl. Marine Const. Co. v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 56 (2013). Specifically, 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b) provides:
A civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district
is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
3 Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue, the
Court does not reach Defendants’ other arguments regarding dismissal.
Case 3:26-cv-00128-MEO-WCM Document 34 Filed 05/19/26 Page 3 of 6

4
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action
is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise
be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district
in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.
If the case falls into one of those three categories, “venue is proper; if it does not,
venue is improper, and the case must be dismissed or transferred under § 1406(a).”
Atl. Marine Const. Co., 571 U.S. at 56. “[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of showing
that venue is proper.”
Hagins v. Myers, No. 3:25-CV-00538-KDB-SCR, 2025 WL
2480132, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2025).
In this case, the individual Defendants reside outside of this District, and
Defendant Hospital is located in the Eastern District of North Carolina. There is also
no evidence—or even allegation—otherwise showing a connection or affiliation of the
Hospital to the Western District of North Carolina.4 Further, this action arises out
of events that occurred in the District of Guam and the Eastern District of North
Carolina, and Plaintiff does not allege any events occurring in the Western District
of North Carolina. Therefore, under § 1391(b), venue is improper in this District.
Because venue is improper, the Court must either dismiss the case or “if it be
in the interest of justice” transfer the case to a district in which the case could have
been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). “When venue would be proper in another district
under § 1391, transfer is preferred over dismissal unless there is evidence that a case
4 Entities are deemed to reside “in any judicial district in which such defendant is
subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.”
28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2).
Case 3:26-cv-00128-MEO-WCM Document 34 Filed 05/19/26 Page 4 of 6

5
was brought in an improper venue in bad faith or in an effort to harass a defendant.”
Hagins, 2025 WL 2480132, at *1. Here, the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint
occurred in District of Guam and the Eastern District of North Carolina. However,
the Court notes the United States District Courts for the District of Guam and the
Eastern District of North Carolina have already entered prefiling injunctions against
Plaintiff in related cases.
See Order Re Pre-Filing Procedure for Vexatious Litigant,
Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp. Inc., et al., No. 23-00025 (D. Guam Dec. 17, 2024),
(Doc. No. 44); Order of Prefiling Injunction,
Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp. Inc., et
al., No. 4:24-cv-98 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2024), (Doc. No. 56). In light of those orders, the
Court finds the interest of justice does not require this matter to be transferred, and
this case will be dismissed.
Further, Plaintiff is strongly CAUTIONED against filing additional frivolous
or improper actions in this District. Doing so may result in the imposition of sanctions
and/or prefiling injunctions that would limit Plaintiff’s ability to file further lawsuits
in this Court.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED;
2. All remaining motions (Doc Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31,
32, & 33) are DENIED as MOOT; and
3. Plaintiff is strongly CAUTIONED against filing additional frivolous or
improper actions. Doing so may result in the imposition of sanctions
Case 3:26-cv-00128-MEO-WCM Document 34 Filed 05/19/26 Page 5 of 6

6
and/or prefiling injunctions that would limit Plaintiff’s ability to file
further lawsuits in this Court; and
4. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 18, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00128-MEO-WCM Document 34 Filed 05/19/26 Page 6 of 6