Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00784/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00784-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0784 MCE DAD P

vs.

METHODIST HOSPITAL, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state parolee proceeding pro se with an action he filed while confined

in Avenal State Prison. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff’s complaint was not accompanied by the $350.00 filing fee or an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. By order filed April 26, 2006, plaintiff was granted

thirty days to pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis application. On

May 25, 2006, plaintiff requested a thirty-day extension of time to file an in forma pauperis

application. Plaintiff alleged that the account office was mishandling his application. On June 1,

2006, plaintiff was granted a thirty-day extension of time to file an in forma pauperis application.

On July 5, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address reflecting his release

from prison. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form to be

used by non-prisoners. Plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury that he received no money

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 6
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

2

from any source during the twelve months preceding the date of his application. The court’s own

records reveal that plaintiff did receive money during the twelve-month period between July 6,

2005, and July 5, 2006. The in forma pauperis application filed by plaintiff on March 20, 2006

in Scott v. Godfrey, case No. CIV F-05-1566 REC DLB (E.D. Cal.), includes a trust account

statement showing that plaintiff had a trust account balance on September 1, 2005, and received

income from a prison job in the month of September 2005. The trust account statement does not

cover the full twelve-month period relevant to this action but does demonstrate that plaintiff has

not submitted an accurate and truthful application to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. 

The application will be denied on the ground that it is inaccurate.

In the order filed in this action on April 26, 2006, plaintiff was advised as follows:

After plaintiff has paid the filing fee or submitted a

properly completed in forma pauperis application, the court will

screen plaintiff’s complaint. The undersigned notes that plaintiff

has filed at least sixteen cases in the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California in the past six years, and it

appears that plaintiff has previously sued all of the defendants in

this case at least once. Plaintiff is cautioned that sanctions may be

imposed if the claims in this action are the same frivolous claims

against Methodist Hospital, the Superior Court, and various

attorneys that have previously been dismissed for failure to state a

§ 1983 claim upon which relief may be granted. See Scott v.

Methodist Hospital, et al., case No. CIV S-02-0042 DFL PAN PS

(dismissed July 5, 2002, as frivolous and for failure to state a

claim); Scott v. Superior Court, et al., case No. CIV S-02-1912

FCD JFM P (dismissed February 18, 2003, on Younger and Heck

grounds); Scott v. Methodist Hospital, et al., case No. CIV S-03-

0259 GEB DAD P (dismissed April 25, 2003, as frivolous and for

failure to state a claim); Scott v. Barry & Randolph, case No. CIV

S-03-1276 FCD KJM PS (voluntarily dismissed July 10, 2003);

Scott v. Sacramento Superior Court, et al., case No. CIV S-04-

2742 DFL JFM P (dismissed June 14, 2005, for failure to state a

claim).

Plaintiff is further cautioned that a prisoner may not bring a

civil action or appeal a civil judgment under 28 U.S.C. 1915

if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,

while incarcerated or detained in any facility,

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United

States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It appears that plaintiff may have already

suffered two strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). If this case proves

to be his third strike, plaintiff will be unable to bring any additional

cases in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury.

(Order filed Apr. 26, 2006, at 1-2.)

Although plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed a properly completed in

forma pauperis application, the undersigned will screen plaintiff’s complaint without further

delay. The court is required to screen a civil complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a

governmental entity or an officer or employee of such an entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b). When any plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must

dismiss the case if the court determines that the action 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).

In the present case, the defendants are Sacramento Superior Court, Randolph

Cregger & Chalfont LLP, Methodist Hospital, and Michael Ubaldi, Esq. Plaintiff’s statement of

claim and prayer for relief are set forth below in their entirety.

I’m soon to parole this year to appear in your building for

the following reasons. Due to the multiple filings requesting

permission to serve consent documents to the cross-complaint

parties involved with Methodist Hospital Catholic Hospital

Healthcare West.

I’ve requested your assistance to grant me an attorney

except you’ve denied that request multiple times when you know

that hospital attorney insurance agency have taken extreme action

against me for their mistakes. The video evidence of the incident

is the main evidence to prove my case. I state again without the

hospital video I’ll lose the case in “May” by time expiration. There

was no evidence proven by the hospital staff or attorneys to explain

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

who I was before they released the baby to me. No disposition

subpoena for personal appearance or to quash was never filed. To

let them get away with perjury is blackmail.

After the hospital video evidence date expires in May, “I

will have no proof.” I want you to make the consent documents to

be served on them. That their explanation about the Disposition

Subpoena Document not being given. What purpose they updated

the Cross-Complaint by perjury to the judge. That you state in the

response that I’ve the Disposition Documents they didn’t provide

me with at the personal delivery by service fee. The service fee

prove they didn’t notify my public defender or give no disposition

documents to my public defender because they purged everything

from the start. I also want to state that I’ve U.S.D.C. letter about

the multiple merits on my behalf that prove they know U.S.D.C.

are letting them get away with perjury. I want millions $.

 

(Compl. at 3.)

Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute provides that

[e]very person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires an actual connection between the actions of the

defendants and the deprivation of rights alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. Monell v.

Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976).

A private person or entity does not act under color of state law for purposes of 42

U.S.C. § 1983 unless the private person or entity “willfully participates in joint action with state

officials to deprive others of constitutional rights.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1048 (9th Cir.

1989). Although lawyers are licensed by the state, they are not government officials merely

because they are lawyers. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 319 n.9 (1981) (citing In re

Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 729 (1973)). An attorney appointed by the state to represent an

individual in state court “does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s

traditional functions as counsel.” 454 U.S. at 318-19, 325.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 11/29/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

In the present case, plaintiff has sued the Sacramento County Superior Court, a

governmental entity. However, plaintiff cannot state a claim under § 1983 against the

Sacramento County Superior Court or the court’s employees because such suits are barred by the

Eleventh Amendment. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156,

1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that arms of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes are not

liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812

F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that state courts are arms of the state for Eleventh

Amendment purposes).

Plaintiff has alleged no facts demonstrating that defendants Randolph Cregger &

Chalfont LLP, Methodist Hospital, and Michael Ubaldi, Esq. are state agencies or state officials

or that these defendants participated in joint action with a state agency or a state official to

deprive plaintiff of federal rights. “[O]f course, ‘merely resorting to the courts . . . does not make

a party a co-conspirator or a joint actor with the judge.’” Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 708 (9th

Cir. 1991) (quoting Dennis v. Sparks,, 449 U.S. 24, 28 (1980)).

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief

can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is legally frivolous and must be

dismissed. Plaintiff will not be granted leave to amend because the defects of his complaint

cannot be cured by amending.

Plaintiff has previously sued Methodist Hospital, Methodist Hospital employees,

and Methodist Hospital attorneys in at least six civil rights actions in this district. See case No.

CIV S-01-1620 DFL JFM P (dismissed for failure to keep the court apprised of a current

address); case No. CIV S-02-0042 DFL PAN PS (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a

claim); case No. CIV S-02-0487 FCD GGH P (dismissed pursuant to Younger and Heck); case

No. CIV S-02-1912 FCD JFM P (dismissed pursuant to Younger and Heck); case No. CIV S-03-

0259 GEB DAD P (dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and as

legally frivolous); and case No. CIV S-03-1276 FCD KJM PS (voluntarily dismissed). Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 11/29/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

has previously sued the Sacramento County Superior Court in at least two civil rights actions in

this district. See case No. CIV S-02-1912 FCD JFM P (dismissed pursuant to Younger and

Heck) and case No. CIV S-04-2742 DFL JFM P (dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted on June 14, 2005). In light of plaintiff’s repeated filing of frivolous

claims against the same defendants, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff’s claims

against the defendants in this action be dismissed with prejudice.

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 5, 2006

application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied; and 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that all claims in this action be dismissed with prejudice

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and as legally frivolous.

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 28, 2006.

DAD:13

scot0784.56

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 11/29/06 Page 6 of 6