Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04646/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04646-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY E. FLEMING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CIGAN HEALTH CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04646-EMC 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION RE DISMISSAL

Docket No. 22

On October 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant suit against Defendants Cigna Health 

Corporation, Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc., 

Starwood Hotels and Resorts Management Company, and Starwood Hotels and Resorts 

Worldwide, Inc. Docket No. 1 (Compl.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his federal and 

constitutional rights by refusing to give copies of his medical records to Plaintiff after discovering 

that Plaintiff is a Jehovah’s Witness. Compl. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis, which was granted by Magistrate Judge Westmore on November 20, 2015. 

Docket No. 2 (IFP App.); Docket No. 7 (IFP Ord.). On February 16, 2016, Judge Westmore 

issued her report and recommendation, recommending that the Court exercise its duty to dismiss a 

case proceeding in forma pauperis where the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may 

be granted. Docket No. 22 (R&R); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Specifically, Judge 

Westmore concluded that Plaintiff had failed to give adequate notice of his claim because:

the allegations in the complaint do not identify which defendant, or 

defendants, engaged in the purportedly wrongful conduct. In fact, 

while five different entities are named as defendants, not one is 

mentioned in the body of the complaint. Nor does any allegation 

show that any one entity is responsible for the misconduct alleged.

R&R at 2-3.

Case 3:15-cv-04646-EMC Document 27 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 2
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

For the Northern District of California

The R&R was served to Plaintiff by mail that same day. See Docket No. 22-1. The Court 

has not since received any objection to the R&R from Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) 

(providing that “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, 

a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendation.”). On February 17, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim, also on the grounds that Plaintiff “fails to identify specific conduct attributable to 

any particular defendant that would give rise to a cause of action. Defendants are thus not 

informed which specific claims are alleged against each of them, or provided with the supposed 

factual basis for such claims as to each Defendant.” Docket No. 23 (Mot. to Dismiss) at 4. 

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was due on March 

2, 2016.

The Court has reviewed Judge Westmore’s report and recommendation; finds it correct, 

well-reasoned, and thorough; and therefore adopts it in every respect. Hence, the Court now 

ADOPTS Judge Westmore’s well-reasoned report and recommendation, DENIES Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss as moot, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff 

shall have 30 days to file an amended complaint, which specifically: (1) identifies the legal and 

factual basis for each cause of action, (2) identifies which causes of action are brought against 

which Defendants, and (3) provides a specific statement of how each Defendant engaged in the 

conduct that is the basis for the claims asserted against that Defendant. The Court also reiterates 

Judge Westmore’s suggestion that Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project for 

free limited legal assistance.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 22 and 23.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04646-EMC Document 27 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2