Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00292/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00292-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

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

DERRICK RICHARDS-WHITE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0292 MCE EFB PS

vs.

JACK LAMENDOLA, ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant. 

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is before the

undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). Pending before the undersigned is defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Dckt. No. 4. For

the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that the motion be granted.

Defendant argues that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s

complaint because there is no federal question raised in the complaint and that plaintiff fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted because plaintiff is not a real party in interest and

has not alleged facts supporting a federal civil rights violation or any other federal cause of

action. Dckt. No. 4-2 at 2, 3. Specifically, defendant argues that plaintiff’s claim appears to be

one for medical negligence, which is not a federal claim; that plaintiff’s complaint is based on

Case 2:10-cv-00292-MCE -EFB Document 9 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 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

2

injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiff’s daughter, and the complaint is not brought on the injured

daughter’s behalf; and plaintiff cannot state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 since defendant is

not a state actor but is instead a private physician. Id. at 2-4. 

Plaintiff responds, inter alia, that “Dr. Lemendola works for the County of Sacramento

which is govern[ed] by the State of California.” Dckt. No. 6 at 5. Plaintiff contends that “Dr.

Lemendola provides medical care to babies through Health Net Medical Insurance, Co. which is

govern[ed] by the County of Sacramento and the State of California.” Id. Plaintiff also contends

that he is his daughter’s legal guardian and argues that he has a legal right to represent her or

himself pro se since he is unable to afford representation. Id. at 6, 7. 

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if

it fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

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

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in

the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must

satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule

8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

Case 2:10-cv-00292-MCE -EFB Document 9 Filed 05/10/10 Page 2 of 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

3

pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007)

(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

Additionally, a federal court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only

those cases authorized by the Constitution and by Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 &

1332, confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question

jurisdiction requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2)

allege a “case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or

(3) be authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers

federal jurisdiction. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). To invoke the court’s diversity

jurisdiction, a plaintiff must specifically allege the diverse citizenship of all parties, and that the

matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bautista v. Pan American World

Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 552 (9th Cir. 1987). A case presumably lies outside the jurisdiction

of the federal courts unless demonstrated otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 376-78. Lack of

subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court. Attorneys

Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Here, plaintiff’s complaint makes no reference to federal law or a federal right, and does

not assert diversity jurisdiction. “A party invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden

of proving the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d

352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s complaint instead appears to assert a state law claim of

medical negligence, which should be brought in state court.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to state a

claim under § 1983, plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory

right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Plaintiff alleges that defendant injected an overdose

Case 2:10-cv-00292-MCE -EFB Document 9 Filed 05/10/10 Page 3 of 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

1

 Additionally, it appears from the allegations in the complaint that plaintiff’s daughter is

the real party in interest in this action and that although plaintiff contends that he is her guardian,

he has not been appointed her guardian by this court, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

17 and Local Rule 202. Additionally, “[a] parent or guardian may not bring an action on behalf of

a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th

Cir. 1997). The rationale underlying this rule is protective. Where minors “have claims that require

adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected.” Id.

4

of the antibiotic amoxicillin to plaintiff’s daughter and that due to the overdose, plaintiff’s

daughter suffered deadly side effects. Dckt. No. 1. Plaintiff, however, fails to allege that

defendant was a state actor or otherwise acted under color of law. See Sutton v. Providence St.

Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999) (The party charged with a constitutional

deprivation under § 1983 must be a person who may fairly be said to be a governmental actor)

(citation and quotations omitted). Section “1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct,

no matter how discriminatory or wrong.” Id. (citing American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,

526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).1

 Rather, it appears that

defendant was a private physician who was not acting under color of state law.

Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. Because it does not appear that

plaintiff could state a federal claim or otherwise assert proper subject matter jurisdiction in an

amended complaint, plaintiff will not be granted leave to file an amended complaint. See Lopez

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se

litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints unless it

determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is vacated; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to appear at the hearing telephonically, Dckt. No. 7, is denied as

moot.

////

////

Case 2:10-cv-00292-MCE -EFB Document 9 Filed 05/10/10 Page 4 of 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

5

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 4, be granted; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

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 fourteen days

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

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

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 10, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00292-MCE -EFB Document 9 Filed 05/10/10 Page 5 of 5