Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00972/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00972-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 444
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Welfare
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANETTA SCONIERS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07cv972 AWI DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT

USM-285 FORMS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

TO REINSTATE SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document 8)

Plaintiff Janetta Sconiers (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

action, filed on July 9, 2007. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 11, 2007, along

with a request that the Court reinstate a prior Scheduling Order. When this action was first filed,

it was incorrectly construed as an appeal of a denial of Social Security benefits. The Court

therefore vacated the August 3, 2007, Scheduling Order in a Social Security Appeal and

informed Plaintiff that her complaint would be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). As

this case is not a Social Security Appeal, Plaintiff’s request to reinstate the August 3, 2007,

Scheduling Order is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

Case 1:07-cv-00972-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 8
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

if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

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

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

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, 

cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has

jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of

several different types may be demanded.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

particularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id. 

Although a complaint need not outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from

the allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement to relief under some viable

legal theory. Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990);

Lewis v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998).

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

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

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

Case 1:07-cv-00972-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 8
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

3

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges numerous constitutional and statutory violations

relating to the August 29, 2006, decision by the California Department of Social Services

(“DSS”) sustaining Fresno County’s decision to discontinue her In-Home Support Services

(“IHSS”). She names numerous defendants: Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and its

Commissioner, Michael J. Astrue, DSS and its director, Cliff Allenby, Fresno County IHSS and

its director, Julie Hornback, DSS Social Workers Pao Vang, Jesse Rojas, Jose Plasencia,

Timoteo Gomez, Andrew Baxter, Minaxi Jhaveri, Jose Banuelos, and John R. Castello,

Administrative Law Judges (“ALJ”) Joyce Howell, Elizabeth Parker and Gregory L Martin, and

Health Care Providers Nellie Go, Valley Gamily Medical Center and Fresno Community

Hospital. 

According to Plaintiff’s lengthy amended complaint, it appears that she applied for IHSS

in April 2004. She was granted IHSS in June 2004, but contends that on August 31, 2005,

without providing the mandatory ten day notice or an opportunity to be heard, her benefits were

terminated.

A flurry of administrative activity then occurred, the exact nature of which is not

immediately clear from the amended complaint. In the end, Defendants affirmed the termination

of her benefits on August 29, 2006. 

With respect to the above events, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide the

minimal procedural safeguards required by due process, including providing notices of hearings,

an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and access to an impartial decision maker. She

further contends that Defendants made fraudulent representations, convened hearings despite

informing Plaintiff that they were postponed and improperly failed to rescind the decision to

discontinue IHSS. She also alleges that in processing her application, Defendants obtained and

disseminated medical reports without her prior written authorization.

Case 1:07-cv-00972-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/02/08 Page 3 of 8
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

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for denial of due process and equal protection under the

Fourteenth Amendment, violations of the California Constitution, violations of California Code

of Civil Procedure sections 1005 and 1987, violations of California Civil Code sections 56 and

47, violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), violations of

45 C.F.R. § 205.10, violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code sections 11209, 12300,

12300.1, 12309, and 14132.95, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff requests

temporary restraining orders, temporary and permanent injunctions, and damages in excess of

$40,000,000. 

C. Discussion

Plaintiff’s action is, fundamentally, a procedural due process challenge to the actions of

DSS and Fresno County IHSS. Plaintiff’s ability to bring such a challenge arises under the Civil

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides redress for violations of federally protected rights

committed by persons acting under color of law. At a minimum, in order to state a claim under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a person was acting under color of state law at

the time the act complained of was committed; and (2) that person’s conduct deprived plaintiff of

rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Paratt

v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). To warrant relief under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff

must allege and show that defendant’s acts or omissions caused the deprivation of his

constitutionally protected rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus, the

statute plainly requires that there be an actual causal connection or link between the actions of the

defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). 

In her amended complaint, Plaintiff groups all Defendants together and refers to them as a

collective unit. She makes allegations against the group as a whole, but in doing so, she fails to

link each Defendant with an alleged deprivation of her rights. 

1. SSA and Michael Astrue

First, despite Plaintiff’s characterization of her amended complaint and her naming of

Michael J. Astrue and the SSA as Defendants, this action does not involve an appeal of a denial

Case 1:07-cv-00972-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/02/08 Page 4 of 8
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

of Social Security benefits. Instead, her complaint involves the denial of IHSS, a program that is

provided by DSS and administered through local IHSS offices in county welfare departments. 

Cal. Welf & Inst. Code § 12300, et seq. Although partly supported by federal funds, IHSS is not

administered by the SSA nor does the SSA make any decisions regarding an applicant’s

eligibility. On this basis, then, Defendants SSA and Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, are not proper defendants and should be DISMISSED.

2. Social Workers Pao Vang, Jesse Rojas, Jose Plasencia, Timoteo Gomez, Andrew

Baxter, Minaxi Jhaveri, Jose Banuelos, and John R. Castello

Other than a statement that “Defendant Pao Vang provided Plaintiff notice her services

had been erroneously discontinued, she had been denied additional paramedical hours, and that

they were being restored effective December 16, 2006,” Plaintiff makes no allegations against

any of the individual social worker defendants. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743

(9th Cir. 1978). Thus, the requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind

of direct personal participation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by other which the

actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury. 

Id. This standard of causation “...closely resembles the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of

proximate cause.” Arnold v. International Bus. Mach. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.

1981).

Plaintiff has therefore failed to link any alleged deprivations with these Defendants and

has failed to state a claim against them. Similarly, the statement relating to Defendant Pao Vang

is not sufficient to state a claim. “A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show

that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Defendants Pao Vang, Jesse Rojas, Jose

Plasencia, Timoteo Gomez, Andrew Baxter, Minaxi Jhaveri, Jose Banuelos, and John R. Castello

should therefore be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiff discover facts that

Case 1:07-cv-00972-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/02/08 Page 5 of 8
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

support allegations against these individual Defendants, she may move to amend the complaint at

that time.

3. ALJs Joyce Howell, Elizabeth Parker and Gregory L Martin

Again, although Plaintiff makes blanket allegations against all Defendants, she fails to

make specific allegations against the named ALJs linking them. As explained above, “[a]

plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally

involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th

Cir. 1998). She fails to do so with respect to Defendants Howell, Parker and Martin and they

should be DISMISSED.

4. DSS

Insofar as Plaintiff names DSS, she may not sustain an action against a state agency. The

Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting

state. Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation

omitted); see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996); Puerto Rico

Aqueduct Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v. State Indus.

Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir. 1991). The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state

agencies as well as those where the state itself is named as a defendant. See Natural Resources

Defense Council v. California Dep’t of Tranp., 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks, 951

F.2d at 1053; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada

Department of Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell

v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). Because DSS is a

state agency, it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Accordingly, DSS

should be DISMISSED.

5. HIPAA Cause of Action

Insofar as Plaintiff attempts to state a cause of action under HIPAA, she is not entitled to

do so. HIPAA does not provide for a private right of action, as the law specifically states that the

Department of Health and Human Services must pursue enforcement actions. See eg., O'Donnell

Case 1:07-cv-00972-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/02/08 Page 6 of 8
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

v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming, 173 F.Supp.2d 1176, 1178 (D.Wyo.2001). Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s HIPAA cause of action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants SSA, Michael J. Astrue, Pao Vang, Jesse Rojas, Jose Plasencia,

Timoteo Gomez, Andrew Baxter, Minaxi Jhaveri, Jose Banuelos, John R.

Castello, Joyce Howell, Elizabeth Parker, Gregory Martin and DSS be

DISMISSED; and

2. Plaintiff’s HIPAA cause of action be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W.

Ishii, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff

may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

ORDER

At this screening stage, given the overall nature of the allegations in Plaintiff’s amended

complaint, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Service is appropriate for the following Defendants: 

Fresno County IHSS

Cliff Allenby

Julie Hornback

Nellie Go

Valley Family Medical Center

Fresno Community Hospital

Case 1:07-cv-00972-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/02/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff six USM-285 forms, six summonses,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed December 11,

2007.

3. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed

Notice to the Court with the following documents:

a. Six completed summonses;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant; and

C. Seven copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed on December 11,

2007.

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct the

United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

5. The failure to comply with this Order will result in a Recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 26, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00972-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/02/08 Page 8 of 8