Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00816/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00816-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AROR-ARK O'DIAH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DISCOVER BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.19-cv-00816-EDL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

ON PLAINTIFF'S IFP APPLICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 3

Plaintiff Aror-Ark O’Diah filed a pro se complaint, as well as an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff’s financial affidavit adequately demonstrates his indigency to 

proceed without paying the filing fee and his IFP application is GRANTED. In addition to 

reviewing Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court must also screen his complaint to ensure that it 

states a claim upon which relief can be granted and is not frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Because the Court does not have consent from all parties, it issues this report and recommendation 

to dismiss all claims without prejudice except for Plaintiff’s claims relating to his appeal of the 

Social Security ALJ’s decision that his period of disability begins only as of September 27, 2016, 

rather than June 29, 2000 as Plaintiff contends. The Court further recommends transferring the 

complaint to the Eastern District of New York, which appears to be the proper venue for 

Plaintiff’s Social Security appeal. The Court directs the Clerk to reassign this case to a District 

Judge. 

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint contains nearly 100 paragraphs that allege wide-ranging misconduct 

against him from improper calculations of his Social Security benefits to being set on fire while he 

was in prison to being refused medical treatment due to his lack of health insurance. In 14 

separate claims alleging violations of his constitutional rights based on discrimination for his 

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 9 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 7
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

national origin or failure to provide timely government benefits, Plaintiff seeks $50 million against 

each Defendant for $1.2 billion in damages.1

The Court must construe Plaintiff’s allegations liberally. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 

(1980) (per curiam). Still, pro se litigants must still comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

8, which requires that a complaint makes a “short and plain statement” demonstrating that the 

plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Ingram v. Stonestown Shopping Center, 2013 

WL 3157908, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2013). 

When reviewing a complaint filed in connection with an IFP application, the Court must 

dismiss the case if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or if the action is 

frivolous. A complaint is “frivolous” when it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). When determining whether to dismiss a complaint as 

“frivolous” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(13)(i), the Court has “‘the unusual power to pierce the 

veil of the complaint’s factual allegations,’” meaning that the Court “is not bound, as it usually is 

when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth 

of the plaintiff’s allegations.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Nietzke, 490 

U.S. at 327). Further, the Ninth Circuit has expressly held that frivolous litigation “is not limited 

to cases in which a legal claim is entirely without merit . . . [A] person with a measured legitimate 

claim may cross the line into frivolous litigation by asserting facts that are grossly exaggerated or 

totally false.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2007).

Nearly half of Plaintiff’s allegations concern events that took place from 2000 to 2013 and 

run the gamut from allegations about race discrimination in his workplace and incidents in which 

Plaintiff was seriously injured in violent attacks by groups of assailants to claims or mistreatment 

by police departments and state courts. These allegations do not involve any of the named 

Defendants, and mostly raise incredible claims.

The allegations upon which Plaintiff appears to seek relief begin at paragraph 41 and 

 

1 On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request to correct the coversheet on his complaint to add 

Defendant “Weill Cornell Medicine a/k/a Weill Cornell Internal Medicine Associates,” although 

this Defendant was already listed on the original complaint.

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 9 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

involve claims that Plaintiff was denied relief from the New York City Human Resources 

Administration for welfare assistance in 2014. Compl., ¶¶ 41-44. Plaintiff claims that an 

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an order that Plaintiff must be given benefits retroactively 

but that the New York City Human Resources Administration failed to comply with that order and 

owe him $22,359 in benefits. Id., ¶¶ 43-44. Even if there were some basis in fact for this claim, 

this Court does not have jurisdiction to enter the relief Plaintiff seeks against a state agency for 

failure to pay welfare benefits.

Plaintiff’s next set of allegations concern a Social Security disability decision that an ALJ 

entered in his favor on December 14, 2018. Id., ¶¶ 45-50. Although he obtained a favorable 

decision, Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s determination that his period of disability began on 

September 27, 2016. Id., ¶ 48. Plaintiff claims he became disabled as of June 29, 2000 and seeks 

an order that his Social Security disability benefits must be retroactive to that date. Id., ¶ 50. 

Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the ALJ’s decision, which was denied on January 24, 2019. 

Thus, Plaintiff may have exhausted his administrative remedies and timely filed his complaint 

within 60 days of when the ALJ’s decision became final, as required under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

His complaint does not specifically state that he is seeking judicial review under Section 405(g) 

but viewing the pleadings liberally, as the Court must when construing the allegations of a pro se 

complaint, it is apparent that Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the ALJ’s decision. 

While Plaintiff’s Social Security claim may go forward, it appears that Plaintiff may have 

filed this claim in the wrong district. A complaint for judicial review of a Social Security decision 

must be filed “in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff 

resides, or has his principal place of business, or, if he does not reside or have his principal place 

of business within any such judicial district, in the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia.” Id. While Plaintiff says that he has a residence in Oakland, California, all of the 

complaint’s allegations occurred in New York, his Social Security application was processed in 

New York, and all of the other documents attached to his complaint evince a residence in 

Brooklyn, New York. Generally, a Social Security case that is improperly venued will be 

transferred to the proper court. See Barrett-Barksdale v. Colvin, 2014 WL 4929444, at *1 (E.D. 

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 9 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 7
4

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

Cal. Sept. 30, 2014). The Court also notes that that the complaint names the Social Security 

Administration as the Defendant, when appeals must be brought against the Social Security 

Commissioner. See Butler v. Apfel, 144 F.3d 622, 624 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the proper 

defendant in a Social Security appeal is the Social Security Commissioner) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g)). So while the Court recommends transferring Plaintiff’s Social Security claim to the 

correct venue, the Court encourages Plaintiff to seek counsel with experience litigating Social 

Security appeals.

Plaintiff also makes various allegations against the Social Security Administration for its 

handling of his request to update the information the agency keeps about him. Plaintiff alleges 

that the Social Security Administration is intentionally giving incorrect information about Plaintiff 

to various institutions, such as banks and schools, and as a result Plaintiff has been denied 

admission to schools and business loans and credit. Compl., ¶ 51. He also alleges that the Social 

Security Administration has refused to accept any form of identification aside from his birth 

certificate, even though Plaintiff alleges that it has accepted other types of identification for others

in his situation. Id., ¶¶ 53-54. Plaintiff also alleges that a Social Security Administration 

employee by the name of Ms. Hurley made discriminatory comments about his Nigerian ethnicity 

and accosted him when he attempted to use his identification card, passport, and certification of 

naturalization to change the information that the Social Security Administration has on file for 

him. Id., ¶¶ 57-63. These facts do not plausibly allege a discrimination claim. There is no detail 

given about the other individuals who he alleges were allowed to use these other forms of 

identification with the Social Security Administration, nor is the Court aware of any authority 

recognizing an entitlement to use particular forms of identification with public agencies under 

these facts.

Plaintiff’s final set of allegations concern his interactions with various hospitals and 

medical providers in New York. Id., ¶¶ 64-87. He alleges that his chiropractor at New York 

Medical and Diagnostic Center (also known as Ortho-Neuro-Musculo-Skeletal Diagnostic and 

Treatment Center) and the staff at New York-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan hospital improperly 

refused to provide him with treatment because he does not have health insurance, even though he 

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 9 Filed 03/15/19 Page 4 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

tried to negotiate an alternative payment arrangement. With respect to the incident at New YorkPresbyterian Lower Manhattan hospital, Plaintiff alleges that he presented with “severe and 

excruciating chest pains and dizziness,” a physician’s assistant told him that his blood pressure 

“was extremely abnormally high,” his legs were swollen and he had difficulty walking, and he had 

“severe and excruciating head pain like headache.” Id., ¶¶ 65-69. He alleges that he was initially 

told that the hospital had a policy of holding patients in his condition overnight and that the 

hospital was trying to secure a bed for him. Id., ¶¶ 66, 68. He alleges that he was discriminated 

against because he believes a woman was treated even though she also did not have health 

insurance. Id., ¶ 76. Plaintiff further alleges that the Social Security Administration, Kings 

County Medical Center, Queens Medical Center, and New York-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan 

hospital all contacted his chiropractor to discourage him from taking cash payments from Plaintiff 

for his treatment in lieu of health insurance. Id., ¶ 86. He claims the same conspiracy took place 

when he attempted to schedule a “medical emergency visit” at Weill Cornell Medicine. Id., ¶ 87. 

Finally, he alleges that his chiropractor illegally made charges on his Discover Bank credit card 

for treatment. Id., ¶ 90.

There is no constitutional right to health care for non-prisoners. Thus, a private hospital, 

such as New York-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan is generally under no obligation to provide 

treatment to patients. However, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active 

Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, which requires private hospitals, if they participate in Medicare, 

to “provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the 

hospital’s emergency department . . . to determine whether or not an emergency condition . . . 

exists,” regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a). The statute includes a 

private right of action: “Any individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result of a 

participating hospital’s violation of a requirement of this section may, in a civil action against the 

participating hospital, obtain those damages available for personal injury under the law of the 

State in which the hospital is located, and such equitable relief as is appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 

1396dd(d)(2).

Plaintiff did not specifically reference this statute in the complaint, but construing his 

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 9 Filed 03/15/19 Page 5 of 7
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

allegations liberally it appears that this statutory claim is the one he is making. However, his 

claims against New York Medical and Diagnostic Center (where his chiropractor works) would 

not be viable because there is no allegation that he was under an emergency and any allegation of 

that kind would not be plausible given the nature of chiropractic treatment. Moreover, the Ninth 

Circuit has construed the private right of action under the statute to only run against the hospital 

itself, not individual physicians. Eberhardt v. City of Los Angeles, 62 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (9th 

Cir. 1995). Thus, Plaintiff has not stated a claim against the individual doctors and other hospital 

employees who are named as Defendants (Jason Ausmus, Colleen McCarthy, Ellen Hawa, 

Szekum Tam). 

More fundamentally, Plaintiff’s allegations that he was under a medical emergency at New 

York-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan or Weill Cornell Medicine are not plausible. For example, 

he alleges that he scheduled a “medical emergency visit” with Dr. Soltani at Weill Cornell 

Medicine. A document attached to the complaint identifies Dr. Soltani as an internal medicine 

doctor, not an emergency medicine doctor. It is not plausible that a person experiencing a true 

medical emergency would schedule a visit with a doctor. Further, Plaintiff’s complaint, as a 

whole, alleges a series of generally implausible claims. In the background allegations included in 

the complaint, for example, Plaintiff alleges that he was attacked not just once but several times by 

organized groups of assailants and that he was set on fire. Accordingly, the Court recommends 

finding that these health care-related claims are frivolous and do not state a claim. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court recommends dismissing all claims without 

prejudice except for Plaintiff’s claims relating to his appeal of the Social Security ALJ’s decision 

that his period of disability begins only as of September 27, 2016, rather than June 29, 2000 as 

Plaintiff contends. The Court further recommends transferring the complaint to the Eastern 

District of New York, which appears to be the proper venue for Plaintiff’s Social Security appeal. 

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 9 Filed 03/15/19 Page 6 of 7
7

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

right to appeal the District Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March ___, 2019

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

15

Case 3:19-cv-00816-WHA Document 9 Filed 03/15/19 Page 7 of 7