Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00812/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00812-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK L. SIMMONS, SR. )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

ROBERT SYDNEY JULIAN, M.D., et)

al., )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 05-CV-00812-OWW-SMS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED 

(DOC. 10) 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

action for damages concerning alleged medical malpractice and

related tortious conduct. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules

72-302 and 72-304.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 21, 2005; on June 24,

2005, the complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended

complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon

which this Court could grant relief. On July 22, 2005, Plaintiff

filed a first amended complaint (FAC).

I. Screening the Complaint

In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 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

pauperis, the Court is required to screen cases and shall dismiss

the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2).

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

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief,

whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, 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 (5thCir. 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

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 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

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).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 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

Id.

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11th Cir.

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984).

Here, in the FAC Plaintiff seeks damages according to proof;

no specific amount of damages is stated. Plaintiff alleges that

while under the care of Defendants Julian and Tabari, a dentist

and trainee, respectively, Plaintiff suffered injury from a

negligently performed tooth extraction and from Defendants’

related intentional and negligent misrepresentations made to

induce Plaintiff to seek, or to continue to seek, care from

Defendants. Defendant University Medical Center is named as the

site of the conduct and is described as a hospital organized and

existing under the laws of the state of California.

To state a claim pursuant to § 1983, a plaintiff must plead

facts demonstrating that defendants acted under color of state

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 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

law at the time the act complained of was committed and that the

defendants deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.

1986).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s

Constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment. However, Plaintiff alleges no facts showing

a cognizable denial of due process of law. 

Plaintiff alleges:

 26. Plaintiff has been deprived of his civil and 

constitution rights to sustain and be protected from

cruel and unusual treatment under the 14th Amendment 

to the U. S. Constitution for Defendants’ acts

and/or omissions complained of herein in this complaint.

27. Defendants did, while acting under color of law, 

violated Plaintiff’s right under the 14th Amendment to

the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Complt. at 6.) He also alleged the following with respect to

jurisdiction:

1. This action is to redress violation of Plaintiff’s civil

rights, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendments of the United

States Constitution, by the above named Defendants while

acting under color of an statute, ordinance, regulation,

custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District

of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any 

citizen of the United States or other person with the 

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any right, or

privilege within the meaning of Title 42. U.S.C., section

1983.

(Complt. at 1.)

Plaintiff has not provided a short, plain statement of the

facts on which the jurisdiction of this Court depends. Plaintiff

alleges in a conclusional fashion deprivations of his civil

rights, and he alleges that Defendants acted under color of state

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 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

law. However, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would

demonstrate the denial of any federally protected right, any

action by Defendants taken under color of state law, or

jurisdiction in this Court. It appears that Defendants were

acting as private parties and not under color of state law.

Generally, private parties are not acting under color of state

law. See Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991).

Further, Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing any other

basis of jurisdiction in this Court, such as diverse citizenship

of the parties and an amount in controversy that would bring this

action within the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to proceed on a tort

theory, concerning either intentional or negligent conduct by

medical care providers in the course of his treatment, the Court

concludes that Plaintiff states a state law claim and not a

federal claim. Plaintiff does not state facts indicating that

this action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

the United States and thus confers jurisdiction on this Court. 

In the FAC, Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating

that this action arises under federal law or that there is

jurisdiction in this Court. In the Court’s order dismissing

Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, Plaintiff was informed

of the need to allege facts showing deprivation of a federally

protected right, action under color of law, or other facts

showing jurisdiction in this Court. Plaintiff has had an

opportunity to file an amended complaint, but Plaintiff has not

remedied the defects in the initial complaint; he has alleged

only conclusions, and not facts. There is no basis for an

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 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

inference that it is possible that Plaintiff might allege such

facts. Thus, it appears that granting Plaintiff leave to amend

would be futile.

III. Recommendation

Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that

1. The complaint BE DISMISSED without leave to amend and

with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and

2. The Clerk of Court BE DIRECTED to enter judgment for

Defendant because the dismissal would terminate the action in its

entirety.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, 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.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 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

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 08/16/05 Page 8 of 8