Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02410/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02410-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA CLARK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 05-2410 FCD KJM PS

vs.

CAROL POPE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

 Defendant Pope’s motion to dismiss came on regularly for hearing April 26,

2006. Plaintiff appeared in propria persona. Michael Denison appeared for defendant Pope. 

Susan Hilton appeared for defendant Hershewe. Upon review of the documents in support and

opposition, upon discussion with plaintiff and counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE

COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

In the third amended complaint, plaintiff alleges claims against defendant Pope

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of property interests and retaliation. Third Amended

Complaint (“TAC”) at 11:22, 22:11. Plaintiff alleges defendant Pope is a claims adjuster

involved with plaintiff’s workers compensation case. TAC ¶ 34. Defendant moves to dismiss

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 90 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 Defendant moves to dismiss also under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) and

raises a variety of issues with respect to the 12(b)(6) motion. As explained below, however,

plaintiff’s third amended complaint is fatally flawed because plaintiff cannot allege the moving

defendant is a state actor.

2

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) defendant

was acting under color of state law at the time the complained of act was committed; and (2)

defendant's conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). Here, defendant Pope acted as nothing more than a claims adjuster; her actions cannot be

fairly characterized as state action. Defendant Pope is therefore not amenable to suit for violation

of plaintiff’s civil rights. See American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan, 526

U.S. 40 (1999). Defendant’s motion to dismiss should therefore be granted.

Plaintiff has improperly noticed for hearing a motion to add the Secretary of

Health and Human Services as a party. No proposed amended complaint was submitted in

connection with the motion and in the moving papers plaintiff does not set forth a cause of action

against the proposed additional defendant. Plaintiff’s motion will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to add the Secretary of Health and Human Services as a

defendant is denied; 

2. The status conference is reset from May 10, 2006 to May 17, 2006 at 10:00

a.m. in courtroom no. 26; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Pope’s motion to dismiss be

granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 90 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 28, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

clark.pope.57

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 90 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 3