Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04814/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04814-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORENZO R. CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDTRONIC INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04814-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner incarcerated at the California Healthcare Facility, filed 

this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional and state tort violations 

arising out of a 2012 surgery during which he had rods installed in his back. The surgery was 

performed by defendant UCSF Medical Doctor Shane Burch (“Burch”), and the rods were 

manufactured by a company acquired by defendant Medtronic, Inc (“Medtronic”). In an order 

filed March 2, 2015, the Court screened the complaint (Dkt. No. 1), and determined that it stated 

the following cognizable claims: (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 

defendant Burch; (2) a supplemental state law negligence claim against defendant Burch; and 

(3) supplemental state law product liability claims against defendant Medtronic. See Dkt. No. 18.

Plaintiff now moves to voluntarily dismiss the claims against defendant Burch. See Dkt. 

No. 66. Plaintiff represents that defendant Burch recently performed surgery to remove the 

defective rods from plaintiff’s back and that plaintiff maintains a physician-patient relationship 

with defendant Burch. Both defendants have filed statements of non-opposition to the dismissal of 

defendant Burch. See Dkt. Nos. 67, 68.

Accordingly, good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss defendant 

Burch is GRANTED. Said defendant is dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk shall terminate 

defendant Burch from the docket in this action.

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 69 Filed 03/02/16 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

Northern District of California

The remaining defendant, Medtronic, cannot be sued under Section 1983 because it is a 

private, not a state, actor. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Any claims plaintiff 

has against Medtronic are state law claims against a private actor, here on the basis of 

supplemental jurisdiction. Because the Court has dismissed all the claims over which it has 

original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state 

law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the action is hereby DISMISSED without 

prejudice to plaintiff pursuing his claims against Medtronic in state court.1

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1

The Court notes that, prior to voluntarily dismissing defendant Burch, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

leave to file an amended complaint, which remains pending. This does not change the Court’s 

analysis. The Court has reviewed the proposed amended complaint, see Dkt. no 59, and finds the 

only federal claims therein are claims asserted against defendant Burch.

3/2/2016

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 69 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 2