Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00065/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00065-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO MICHAEL KEITH MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MOUNT 

ZION,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00065-JSC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. ' 1983 against a hospital, the University of California San Francisco Medical Center at 

Mount Zion (“Mt. Zion Hospital”).

1

 He seeks records from when he was allegedly treated there in 

1980. His application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons 

explained below, the complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

§ 1915A(b). 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (Dkt. 3.) 

Case 3:16-cv-00065-JSC Document 5 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 

state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to 

provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to 

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally 

construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that he has attempted to obtain records from Mt. Zion Hospital showing 

that he was admitted there on August 28, 1980, and discharged on September 1, 1980. He wants 

these records to show that he could not have been at the location of a crime for which he was 

charged that occurred on August 31, 1980, when he was in the hospital. He attaches to his 

complaint correspondence from Mt. Zion Hospital responding to his requests by informing him 

that they have no record of a patient with his name being admitted there. He seeks a subpoena 

requiring Mt. Zion Hospital to “go into their archives and locate the micro-fish film [sic]” where 

his attendance records are kept and forward such records to him. 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To 

state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured 

by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation 

was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). Assuming that Mt. Zion Hospital is a state actor, Plaintiff has alleged no constitutional 

right or other federal law, and the Court is not aware of any, requiring Mt. Zion Hospital to search 

for the medical records he seeks. Furthermore, the attachments to his complaint indicate that 

UCSF searched for the records but none were found. If Plaintiff believes that search was 

Case 3:16-cv-00065-JSC Document 5 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

inadequate, he may seek a subpoena in his criminal proceedings, but he may not obtain one via a 

complaint under Section 1983. 

Leave to amend is not warranted because it is clear that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts 

regarding Mt. Zion Hospital’s search for records that would amount to a violation of federal law. 

See Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (a pro se complaint may be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim “where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no 

set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief”); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The Clerk 

shall enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00065-JSC Document 5 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 3