Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01594/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01594-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

15CV1594 BEN (MDD)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON R. HOPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEPPERBUSH HOLDING LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15CV1594 BEN (MDD)

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IFP 

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT

[Docket No. 2]

Plaintiff Shannon R. Hopson, proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint. (Docket 

No. 1.) Plaintiff has not paid the civil filing fee required to commence this action, but has 

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Docket No. 2.) For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed IFP and sua sponte screens and 

DISMISSES the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

All parties instituting any civil action in a district court must pay a filing fee. 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire 

Case 3:15-cv-01594-BEN-MDD Document 3 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 3
2

15CV1594 BEN (MDD)

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

fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),

[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or 

proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 

by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement 

of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to 

pay such fees or give security therefor.

The information provided in Plaintiff’s affidavit reflects an inability to pay the fee 

to pursue this action. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 

is GRANTED. 

II. Sua Sponte Screening

An IFP complaint is subject to mandatory screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss any complaint if at any time the Court determines 

that it 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.” The sua 

sponte screening is mandatory. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) 

(“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

The caption of Plaintiff’s Complaint lists wrongful death, elder abuse, elder 

financial abuse, and mental stress. Plaintiff names Defendant Peppperbush Holdings 

LLC, formerly Chase Care Center and two individuals as defendants. Plaintiff’s 

Complaint appears to allege the deficient medical care of Floyd Hopson. 

Plaintiff invokes jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, however, “[t]o make out a 

cause of action under section 1983, plaintiff[] must plead that (1) the defendants acting 

under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution or 

federal statutes.” Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). The 

Case 3:15-cv-01594-BEN-MDD Document 3 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 3
3

15CV1594 BEN (MDD)

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

Complaint does not allege any conduct by Defendant Pepperbush1that was under color of 

state law. Defendant appears to be a private entity and there are no allegations that would 

suggest Defendant was acting under color of state law in providing medical care. 

Accordingly, the Complaint does not state a claim under § 1983. 

Additionally, the claims Plaintiff asserts are state law claims. Federal courts 

generally lack subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims unless the parties are 

citizens of different states, i.e. diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

28 U.S.C. § 1332. There are no allegations as to the citizenship of the parties. 

Accordingly, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law 

claims. 

Although it appears the state law claims asserted may be more appropriately 

brought in state court, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint 

that cures the deficiencies noted above. If Plaintiff elects to file a FAC, it must be filed 

on or before March 15, 2016. If Plaintiff does not file a FAC by March 15, 2016, the 

case will remain closed. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is sua 

sponte DISMISSED. If Plaintiff wishes to file a FAC, it must be filed by March 15, 

2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016

 

1 The Civil Cover sheet includes the names of two individuals, however, the Complaint lacks any 

allegations against them.

Case 3:15-cv-01594-BEN-MDD Document 3 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 3