Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02150/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02150-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joy Kidwell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Navapache Regional Medical Center; and

Kelly Bunton.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-05-2150-PCT-MHM

ORDER

On July 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Dkt. #1) and Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (Dkt. #2). On August 5, 2005, the Court held in abayance its ruling on the

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice for

failure to allege a claim with federal subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)

and (e)(2). On September 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. #6.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges the Court has federal question subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1343. Plaintiff asserts

Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment

rights by disclosing to Plaintiff's husband she suffers from Hepatitis C. In her Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff maintains Defendants disclosed her confidential information in violation

of state and federal law. Further, Plaintiff asserts Defendants are regulated through state and

federal agencies and Defendant Navapache Regional Medical Center is a non-profit

Case 3:05-cv-02150-MHM Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 3
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 -

organization which is provided tax exempt status by the state and federal government. Am.

Compl. ¶¶ 12-16.

A section 1983 plaintiff must demonstrate a deprivation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States and that the defendants acted under color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). While generally not applicable to private

parties, a section 1983 action can lie against a private party, where the civil rights litigant

establishes the private actor engaged in either: (1) public function; (2) joint action; (3)

governmental compulsion or coercion; or (4) governmental nexus. Kirtley v. Rainey, 326

F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003). 

"Acts of ... private contractors do not become acts of the government" even if the

private contractors are significantly or totally engaged in work under public contracts.

Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 841 (1982). The Ninth Circuit has consistently

dismissed private hospitals, doctors, and attorneys in section 1983 claims for failing to come

within the color of state law. See Briley v. State of Cal., 564 F.2d 849, 855-56 (9th Cir.1977)

(private hospitals not acting under color of state law unless the state is significantly involved

in the private party's activities); Watkins v. Mercy Med. Center, 520 F.2d 894, 896 (9th

Cir.1975) (private doctors normally do not come within the color of state law). Furthermore,

the fact that Defendant is regulated by the state and receives tax exempt status does not

transform Defendant into a governmental actor. Mendez v. Belton, 739 F.2d 15, 17-18 (1st

 Cir. 1984) (holding physician failed to prove that private hospital acted "under color of state

law" in deciding to suspend her staff privileges because extensive government regulation,

receipt of federal Hill-Burton construction funds, and tax-exempt status did not transform

otherwise private hospital into a governmental actor).

The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff's

pleadings. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). Although the facts in Plaintiff's

Amended Complaint may state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach

of contract, malpractice under the physician's tort liability for unauthorized disclosure of

confidential information, etc., these claims do not provide subject matter jurisdiction

Case 3:05-cv-02150-MHM Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 3
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 -

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § §1331, 1332 in federal court and instead would be more properly

raised in state court. The Court has a duty to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction

over all cases before it. See generally, Valdez v. Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.

2004). The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving jurisdiction. Id.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed allege subject matter jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Amended Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend to allow

Plaintiff to file suit in state court if appropriate.

Accordingly

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving security therefore.

(Dkt. #2.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the complaint is dismissed without prejudice without

leave to amend.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 15th day of November, 2005.

Case 3:05-cv-02150-MHM Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 3