Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01825/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01825-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAUL MARIN GONZALEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAVAD JAMSHIDI, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1825 TLN GGH PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 

302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

 The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the 

required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at 

any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or 

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against 

an immune defendant. 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Case 2:15-cv-01825-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 10/07/15 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 

27 

28 

2

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a 

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal 

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 

S.Ct. 1955). “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.” 

Id. 

 Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 

S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff 

proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. 

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230. 

 The complaint alleges that plaintiff visited defendant Dr. Jamshidi’s office, Stockton MRI 

and Molecular Imaging Medical Center on July 19, 2011 for purposes of obtaining an MRI of his 

right shoulder. He claims defendants lied about the results of the MRI by omitting injuries to his 

shoulder, which damaged his workers’ compensation claim. Plaintiff claims that in fact this MRI 

reflects two tears in his shoulder, as confirmed by a different physician. Plaintiff asked 

defendants to correct the MRI findings but they failed to do so. Plaintiff seeks damages for state 

law violations, including medical malpractice, [unidentified] code § 1871.4(a)(4), and Cal. Lab. 

Case 2:15-cv-01825-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 10/07/15 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 

27 

28 

3

Code §§ 132. 4600, 4650, and 5401. The complaint also alleges that defendants are guilty of a 

“major felony” under [unidentified] code § 5432. 

First, the court is unable to determine a jurisdictional basis for this action. A federal court 

is a court of limited jurisdiction, and may adjudicate only those cases authorized by the 

Constitution and by Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 

S. Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1 provides that the judicial power of the United 

States is vested in the Supreme Court, “and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from 

time to time ordain and establish.” Congress therefore confers jurisdiction upon federal district 

courts, as limited by U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697-

99, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 2212 (1992). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time 

by either party or by the court. See Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 

F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). 

 The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal 

question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Statutes which regulate specific subject 

matter may also confer federal jurisdiction. See generally, W.W. Schwarzer, A.W. Tashima & J. 

Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 2:5. Unless a complaint presents a plausible 

assertion of a substantial federal right, a federal court does not have jurisdiction. See Bell v. 

Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S. Ct. 773, 776 (1945). A federal claim which is so insubstantial as 

to be patently without merit cannot serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction. See Hagans v. 

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537-38, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 1379-80 (1974). 

For diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, each plaintiff’s state citizenship 

must be diverse from each defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. For 

federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint must either (1) arise 

under a federal law or the United States Constitution, (2) allege a “case or controversy” within the 

meaning of Article III, section 2, or (3) be authorized by a jurisdiction statute. Baker v. Carr, 369 

U.S. 186, 198, 82 S. Ct. 691, 699-700, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962). 

 Diversity jurisdiction appears to be lacking as both plaintiff and defendants appear to be 

citizens of California. Moreover, the complaint fails to allege a violation of a federal statute or 

Case 2:15-cv-01825-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 10/07/15 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 

27 

28 

4

the constitution. All of plaintiff’s claims arise under state law only. Claims of medical 

malpractice and state labor code violations, such as those stated here, do not create federal subject 

matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may be best advised to pursue his action in state court. 

Second, plaintiff has no standing to pursue alleged violations of state criminal law. 

Criminal statutes do not provide a private right of action. See, e.g., Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 

F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir.1999) (district court properly dismissed claims brought under the 

California Penal Code because the statutes do not create enforceable individual rights). Criminal 

statutes do no give rise to civil liability. Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th 

Cir. 2006). Similarly, when a criminal statute is violated, the question of whether to prosecute 

and what criminal charges to file are decisions that generally rest in the discretion of the 

prosecutor, not the court. United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979). Accordingly, 

insofar as plaintiff alleges criminal conduct by defendants, he cannot sue to prosecute these 

criminal acts, or compel the state or federal government to investigate or prosecute these alleged 

crimes. Therefore, plaintiff may not pursue such claims under these state criminal statutes. 

 Although the court would ordinarily grant a pro se plaintiff leave to amend, it does not 

appear that the above-mentioned defects can be cured by more detailed factual allegations or 

revision of plaintiff’s claims. This court simply has no jurisdiction for state law claims or for 

civil prosecution of criminal violations by private citizens under the facts of this case. 

Accordingly, leave to amend would be futile and the action should be dismissed with prejudice. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

 IT IS ALSO HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. The action be dismissed without prejudice, and 

 2. The case be closed. 

 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 (14) 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-01825-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 10/07/15 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 

27 

28 

5

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). 

Dated: October 6, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/Gonzalez1825.fr 

Case 2:15-cv-01825-TLN-GGH Document 3 Filed 10/07/15 Page 5 of 5