Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00581/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00581-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBBY GENTHNER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CLOVIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and 

DAVID STONE N. P.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-00581-DAD-BAM 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Doc. 4

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Debby Genthner (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 

this civil action on April 25, 2016. On April 28, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint 

based on the failure to adequately allege this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Court 

directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Doc. 3. Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint, filed on May 27, 2016, is currently before the Court for screening. Doc. 4.

Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro per. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is 

frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Case 1:16-cv-00581-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

27

28

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 2012), 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but to survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims 

must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to 

reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not 

sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

As with her original complaint, Plaintiff brings suit against Clovis Community Hospital 

and Nurse Practitioner David Stone. Plaintiff alleges that she went to the Clovis Community

Hospital Emergency room for treatment of severe burn damages to her mouth and throat on April 

21, 2014. Doc. 4 at 1. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Stone examined her mouth and throat 

and offered her a prescription for the sores in her mouth. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Stone 

should have seen the burn damage. Her throat was raw, she had sores all around her mouth, the 

sides of her mouth had deep burn marks and she had a deep pit on one side and a cut mark on the 

other. 

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Stone made her sit in the waiting room for four 

and a half hours and suffer with a burning mouth. She was not offered any pain medication. 

Case 1:16-cv-00581-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Stone should have examined and treated her right away or called 

in specialist to look at her injuries. Plaintiff contends that she tried to explain her injuries to 

Defendant Stone, but all he could do was mentally abuse her and tell her that her sore throat 

caused the sides of her mouth to swell up. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant Stone should 

have reported the damages to the authorities. 

Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of her civil rights, negligence, and failure to report 

her injuries. 

Discussion

A. Fourteenth Amendment 

In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Stone violated her 

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to properly 

diagnose, treat and report the severe burn damages to her mouth and throat. 

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “make or enforce any law which 

shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 

deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any 

person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 

Generally, only “state action [is] subject to Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny and private conduct 

. . . is not.” Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001); 

Jackson v. Metropolitan, 419 U.S. 345, 349 (1974) (“private action is immune from the 

restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment”). However, private action may be considered State 

action if “there is such a ‘close nexus between the State and the challenged action’ that 

seemingly private behavior ‘may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.’” Brentwood Acad., 

531 U.S. at 295 (citation omitted); Jackson, 419 U.S. at 349 (private actor may only be held 

liable for a constitutional violation if there is a “sufficiently close nexus between the State and 

the challenged action of the [private actor] ....”).

Plaintiff has failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim. Defendant Stone is a private 

actor working at Clovis Community Hospital. There are no allegations demonstrating a nexus 

between Defendant Stone and the State, nor are there any allegations demonstrating a nexus 

Case 1:16-cv-00581-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

27

28

between Defendant Clovis Community Hospital and the State. Thus, the asserted actions of 

Defendants may not be fairly treated as that of the state itself. 

Even if Defendants were to be considered state actors, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient 

facts demonstrating that her constitutional rights were violated. Rather, Plaintiff’s claims are 

based on negligence and medical negligence, which are not sufficient to state a claim under the 

Fourteenth Amendment. Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989) (“mere 

negligence or lack of due care . . . does not trigger the protections of the fourteenth 

amendment”). 

B. State Law Claims

Plaintiff has asserted several state law claims, including negligence and medical 

negligence.1 However, Plaintiff has not pled a cognizable federal claim. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original jurisdiction, the district court 

“shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the 

action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 

Article III of the United States Constitution,” except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). The 

Supreme Court has cautioned that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . the state 

claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 

726 (1966).

Here, Plaintiff fails to state a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Although the court may 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable 

claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court will not address Plaintiff's 

state law claims unless and until she states a cognizable claim for relief under federal law.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal claim. However, as Plaintiff is proceeding pro 

se, the Court will provide her with a final opportunity to amend her complaint to state a 

cognizable federal claim. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff may not 

 

1

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated California Penal Code §§ 11160, 11161, and 11161.5. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that that these statutory provisions authorize a private cause of action. 

Case 1:16-cv-00581-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 06/22/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

27

28

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in her amended complaint. George 

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

the named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-

79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 

(citations omitted).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 

pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 

federal claim; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

second amended complaint; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this 

order, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice

for failure to state a claim and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:16-cv-00581-DAD-BAM Document 5 Filed 06/22/16 Page 5 of 5