Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02298/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02298-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

27

28

1

 Defendant State of California has not responded.

- 1 - 09cv2298

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENE PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-2298-IEG (AJB)

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANT

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO’S

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No.

12]; 

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA’S MOTION TO

DISMISS OR ALTERNATIVELY

TO QUASH SERVICE [Doc. No.

13]; and 

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT

ALVARADO HOSPITAL’S

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No.

4].

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; STATE OF

CALIFORNIA; UCSD HOSPITAL;

ALVARADO HOSPITAL; and DOES 1 to

25,

Defendants.

Defendants Alvarado Hospital and the County of San Diego have filed separate motions to

dismiss Plaintiff Gene Patterson’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Defendant Regents of the University of California San Diego (erroneously sued and served

as UCSD Hospital) has also filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, or

alternatively, a motion to quash service.1

These motions are suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule

Case 3:09-cv-02298-CAB-MDD Document 31 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 9
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

- 2 - 09cv2298

7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff’s Complaint. On or about June 9, 2007, while

Plaintiff was in the custody of Defendant County of San Diego (the “County”) at the George Bailey

Detention Facility, Plaintiff fell from his bunk bed onto the floor and was injured. (Compl. at 3.)

Plaintiff alleges the County should have known upon reasonable investigation that the bunk bed “was

a dangerous condition” and Plaintiff would be injured due its unsafe design and structure. (Compl. at

3.)

As a result of the incident, the County provided Plaintiff medical treatment at UCSD Medical

Center operated by Defendant Regents of the University of California (“UCSD”), at Defendant

Alvarado Hospital (“Alvarado”), and at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, operated by

Defendant State of California. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants performed medical services

in a negligent manner, including leaving surgical utensils inside Plaintiff’s body, and denied Plaintiff

medical care. (Compl. at 3.) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on October 16, 2009. (Doc. No. 1.) The Complaint is captioned,

“Plaintiff’s Complaint for Damages Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1981, 1985, the Civil Rights Act of

1871; Rule 60(b)(3).” It is unclear from the Complaint what the causes of action are. Under the

section for jurisdictional allegations, Plaintiff alleges the action is brought pursuant to Section 1983

and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The body of the Complaint is a Judicial

Council of California form complaint alleging three causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) premises

liability; and (3) intentional tort.

On April 15, 2010, the Court set a hearing for dismissal for want of prosecution pursuant to

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 2.) Thereafter, on May 7, 2010, Plaintiff

served the Summons and Complaint on each defendant. (Doc. Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9.)

Presently before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Doc. No. 13.) On June 11,

Case 3:09-cv-02298-CAB-MDD Document 31 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 9
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

2

 In the Court’s Order accepting the late opposition, the Court stated it would take into

consideration Plaintiff’s late opposition to the extent it raises any meritorious arguments.

3

 Plaintiff also filed a document entitled “Amended Plaintiff’s Complaint” (Doc. No. 24) on

June 11, 2010, then re-filed the amended complaint on June, 14, 2010 (Doc. No. 26), and withdrew

the previously filed amended complaint (Doc. No. 28). However, because the time for amending the

complaint as a matter of right had passed, and Plaintiff had not requested or been granted leave to file

an amended complaint, the Court struck the amended complaint. (Doc. No. 26).

- 3 - 09cv2298

2010, Plaintiff filed a late opposition to Defendants’ motions.2 On June 14, 2010, Defendant

 UCSD filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s late opposition. (Doc. No. 30).3

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

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) (2009). A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). The court must accept

all factual allegations pled in the complaint as true, and must construe them and draw all reasonable

inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336,

337-38 (9th Cir.1996). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed

factual allegations, rather, it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility when

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ---, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

However, “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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). A court need not accept “legal

conclusions” as true. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. In spite of the deference the court is bound to pay to

the plaintiff’s allegations, it is not proper for the court to assume that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts

that [he or she] has not alleged or that defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not

been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S.

519, 526 (1983). 

Case 3:09-cv-02298-CAB-MDD Document 31 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 9
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

- 4 - 09cv2298

A liberal standard is used to evaluate a motion to dismiss. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

(1976). “However, a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential

elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Vague and conclusory allegations of official

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.” Ivey v. Bd.

of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted).

II. Analysis of Motions to Dismiss

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

“Section 1983 does not create substantive rights; it merely serves as the procedural device for

enforcing substantive provisions of the Constitution and federal statutes.” Crumpton v. Gates, 947

F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 617

(1979). Consequently, a § 1983 plaintiff must allege “the violation of a right secured by the

Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed

by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988) (citing Parratt

v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474

U.S. 327, 330-331 (1986)).

Here, Plaintiff does not state a claim for violation of § 1983 because he fails to allege

Defendants’ actions resulted in a deprivation of a constitutional or federally protected right, or that

Defendants Alvarado and UCSD acted under color of state law.

1. Deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States

In a § 1983 suit, the inquiry is “‘whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a right “secured by

the Constitution and laws.”’ Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140 (1979). For § 1983 civil liability

to be imposed, “it is necessary to isolate the precise constitutional violation” which Defendants are

charged to have committed.” Id. “Conclusionary allegations, unsupported by facts, [will be] rejected

as insufficient to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act.’” Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702,

707-708 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th

Cir.1984) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege the underlying state tort violations resulted in a deprivation

of Plaintiff’s constitutional or federal rights. Plaintiff’s Complaint states “[i]n doing the things alleged

Case 3:09-cv-02298-CAB-MDD Document 31 Filed 07/21/10 Page 4 of 9
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

4

 Defendant USCD contends Plaintiff’s § 1983 cause of action is barred by the one year statute

of limitation for professional negligence under California Code of Civil Procedure §340.5. (UCSD

Mot. to Dismiss at 8:2-8.) “A statute of limitation defense may be raised by a motion to dismiss if the

running of the limitation period is apparent on the face of the complaint.” Vaughan v. Grijalva, 927

F.2d 476, 479 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677 , 682 (9th Cir. 1980).

In this case, the running of the limitation period is not readily discernible from the complaint.

- 5 - 09cv2298

within this Complaint plaintiff alleges that defendants, and each of thme [sic] violated his Civil and

Personal Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C Sections 1981, 1983, 1985 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871."

(Compl. at 6). Presumably, Plaintiff is alleging the state law causes of action for general negligence,

premises liability, and intentional tort are the basis of his § 1983 action. However, Plaintiff does not

explain how the state law causes of action amount to a deprivation of his constitutional or federal

rights. The Complaint’s caption and jurisdictional allegations, which assert “the action arises under

42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution,” are the only

other references in the Complaint to constitutional or federal law. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff

alleges the state tort violations are the basis for the § 1983 action, Plaintiff fails to state a claim. 

Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations of constitutional and federal violations stated in the

Complaint’s caption and jurisdictional allegations fail under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2),

because the Complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief.” Here, the alleged constitutional and federal violations are insufficient under Rule

8, and therefore also cannot be the basis of the § 1983 action.4

2. State Action

As Defendants Alvarado and UCSD argue, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish

they were state actors. “The traditional definition of acting under color of state law requires that the

defendant in a § 1983 action have exercised power ‘possessed by virtue of state law and made possible

only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.’” West, 487 U.S. at 49-50

(quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)). “However, private parties are not

generally acting under color of state law.” Price, 939 F.2d at 707-708. 

To determine whether action is attributable to the State, the Court conducts a two-part inquiry:

(1) “the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or

by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible;” and (2)

Case 3:09-cv-02298-CAB-MDD Document 31 Filed 07/21/10 Page 5 of 9
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

5

 To establish liability for a conspiracy between the state and private parties under section 1983

Plaintiff “must demonstrate“an agreement or ‘meeting of the minds' to violate constitutional rights.”

 Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S.

144 (1970)). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged a conspiracy between the Defendants to violate Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. 

- 6 - 09cv2298

“the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor”

either because he is a state official, acted together with or obtained significant aid from state officials,

or his conduct is otherwise chargeable to the State. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937

(1982); see Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980) (holding a private party acts under color of state

law by conspiring with a state official or by his willful participation in joint action with a state official

to deprive others of constitutional rights).5

“A person may also become a state actor by becoming so closely

related to the State that the person's actions can be said to be those of

the State itself. That might be found because the nexus is so close as to

cause the relationship to be symbiotic. It might also be for such other

reasons as performing public functions or being regulated to the point

that the conduct in question is practically compelled by the State.” 

Price, 939 F.2d at 708-709 (internal citations omitted). 

The mere existence of a contract with the state generally does not automatically render a

private party a state actor. See e.g. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 840-841 (1982) (explaining

that schools, like nursing homes” do not become state actors “by reason of their significant or even

total engagement in performing public contracts.”); Vincent v. Trend Western Technical Corp., 828

F.2d 563, 569 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding no state action where defendant “may have been dependent

economically on its contract with the Air Force”). However, a defendant’s contract with the state to

provide medical services may rise to the level of state action under § 1983. See West, 487 U.S. at

55-56 (concluding physician employed by state to provide medical care to inmates at prison “pursuant

to a contractual arrangement with state” rendered the physician a state actor); see also Lopez v. Dep't

of Health Services, 939 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir.1991) (concluding allegations that private hospital and

ambulance service “under contract with the state of Arizona to provide medical services to indigent

citizens” were sufficient to support a § 1983 action). 

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-02298-CAB-MDD Document 31 Filed 07/21/10 Page 6 of 9
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

- 7 - 09cv2298

Another factor generally considered is receipt of state funds. Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 840-

842. However, a private hospital’s receipt of “substantial state funding” was insufficient grounds for

holding hospital was a state actor, and “the mere status of being a successor to a county operated or

government funded institution is in no way indicative of state action.” Chico Feminist Women's

Health Center v. Butte Glenn Medical Soc., 557 F. Supp. 1190, 1196 (E.D. Cal. 1983).

Here, Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence alleges “Defendant County of San Diego took

possession” of Plaintiff “with the purpose and duty of incarceration.” (Compl. at 3). Plaintiff further

alleges “ thereafter, defendant County sought to provide plaintiff with necessitated medical assistance

and care . . . by acquiring physicians, surgeons and other medical and [sic] providers at defendant’s

Alvarado Hospital and UCSD Hospital.” (Compl. at 3). Under the Complaint’s venue allegations

Plaintiff states “the contract was entered into for performance . . . and that payments under contract

took place.” (Compl. at 2). This is the only allegation relating to a contract. Plaintiff’s Complaint

does not allege which hospital entered into the contract, nor whether the contract was with the state

of California or the County. Consequently, these allegations are insufficient to conclude Defendants

Alvarado and UCSD were in any way “state actors.”

In his opposition, Plaintiff contends “it is well established law that plaintiff does not have to

plead a particular fact with consummate specificity where one may by reasonable inference conclude

the nature of the direct issue plead.” (Plaintiff’s Opp. to Def. Mot. to Dismiss at 1:26-28). However,

“a defendant is entitled to more than the bald legal conclusion that there was action under color of

state law.” Price, 939 F.2d at 708. 

Because Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead UCSD and Alvarado were state actors, Plaintiff

fails to state a § 1983 cause of action against them. 

3. Municipal Liability

 Defendant County moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 action because, as a matter of law, the

County cannot be held liable for the negligent actions of its employees under a respondeat superior

theory. (County’s Motion to Dismiss at 5:8-9) “[A] municipality cannot be held liable solely because

it employs a tortfeasor -- or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a

respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). A

Case 3:09-cv-02298-CAB-MDD Document 31 Filed 07/21/10 Page 7 of 9
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

6

 The County asserts Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred for failure to comply with the Prison

Reform Litigation Act of 1995 (PRLA) and exhaust all administrative remedies as required under 42

USC § 1997e(a). However, it is unknown whether Plaintiff was a confined prisoner at the time the suit

was brought as required by the terms of the PRLA, U.S.C. § 1997 e(a)(c)(1).

- 8 - 09cv2298

municipality is considered a person which can be held liable under § 1983 "when execution of a

government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may

fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury." Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. 

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged the County has such a policy or custom, or that he was injured

due to such a policy or custom. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff’s §1983 cause of action against the

County is premised upon a respondeat superior theory of liability, Plaintiff fails to state a claim.6

III. State Law Causes of Action

Defendants Alvarado and UCSD argue that if the Court dismisses the § 1983 claims, the Court

should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law causes of action. For the reasons stated

below, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the

Complaint. 

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction only as provided by a constitutional

provision or by statute, and cannot disregard jurisdictional limits. Owen Equipment & Erection Co.

v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978); Kokkonen v Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1978).

 District courts have original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, federal courts have

supplemental jurisdiction over claims “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c) provides that a district court may decline supplemental

jurisdiction over a claim if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim

substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original

jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28

U.S.C. § 1367 (c). In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the court should

Case 3:09-cv-02298-CAB-MDD Document 31 Filed 07/21/10 Page 8 of 9
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

- 9 - 09cv2298

consider the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity. City of Chicago v. Int’l

College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997); Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2001).

Here, two circumstances outlined in § 1367(c) are present: the Court has entirely dismissed

Plaintiff’s federal claims over which it has original jurisdiction; and the only remaining claims before

the Court are the state law claims which necessarily substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Additionally, the interests of judicial economy, fairness, and convenience do not substantially weigh

in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. This case is in the early stages of litigation, and no

discovery has yet taken place.

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law

claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff’s Complaint is

dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must serve the First Amended Complaint according to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may file an amended

complaint within 21 days of the filing of this Order. The amended complaint must be a complete

document without reference to any prior pleading, and must not add any new causes of action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02298-CAB-MDD Document 31 Filed 07/21/10 Page 9 of 9